A popular line of thinking among bankruptcy practitioners and commentators holds that substantive consolidation – the combining of assets and liabilities of a debtor and another debtor or non-debtor entity to satisfy creditor claims against both entities ratably from the resulting pool – is an equitable remedy of judicial invention with no specific foundation in the Bankruptcy Code.

The term “frenemy” – a combination of the words friend and enemy – has emerged from modern vernacular to describe someone who is simultaneously a partner and an adversary. The term is perhaps perfectly emblematic of the restructuring process where various constituents make and break alliances in an effort to steer the restructuring process. In so doing, the lines between friend and enemy are often blurred or altered during the course of the restructuring.

Summary

In a 13 page decision signed, April 11, 2011, Judge Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion disallowing a creditor’s late-filed bankruptcy claim, and held that if there is no legal requirement that a party respond to an affidavit, a lack of response does not bind a party to that affidavit nor can it be considered an admission by that party. Judge Carey’s opinion is available here.

Background

In Hardesty v. CitiFinancial, Inc.,1 the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of the trustee’s request to avoid the debtors’ mortgages with the creditor based on allegedly defective certificates of acknowledgement in the mortgage documents under Ohio law.

The latest numbers on bankruptcy filings in 2010 have been released, and 1.53 million Americans filed for bankruptcy protection last year, an increase of 9% over 2009’s figures. This number is the highest number of bankruptcy filings since the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) became law in 2005. In that year, 2 million Americans filed bankruptcy in order to file before BAPCPA’s restrictions on bankruptcy filings took effect.  

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of a bankruptcy plan administrator for the estate of an insured, holding that the plan administrator is entitled to recover premiums paid to an insurer after the insurer rescinded the policy. In re SONICblue Inc., 2011 WL 839401 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011). The court also held that the insurer is entitled to reimbursement for defense costs paid to the insured prior to the policy’s rescission.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky recently found that a vendor’s filing of a prepetition notice of lis pendens served to place any hypothetical judicial lien creditor, execution creditor, or purchaser of real property on notice of its equitable lien against the property for the unpaid portion of the purchase price. This prepetition notice of lis pendens prevented the debtors-in-possession from avoiding the vendor’s lien in exercise of their strong-arm powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544.

In yet another attack on Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California has refused to allow the assignee of a deed of trust (DOT) to regain possession of a home on which it had foreclosed where the assignment had not been recorded.

STAMAT v. NEARY (March 24, 2011)

On April 7th, a federal bankruptcy court sanctioned Lender Processing Services, Inc., a home foreclosure service provider against whom the Federal Reserve Board and OCC have initiated enforcement action. The opinion explains LPS's business model and that model's failings, and cites case law documenting LPS's historic shortcomings. It reminds litigants that proving a default is the lender's, not counsel's, responsibility. In re Ron Wilson, Sr.