On February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declining to modify the September 20, 2008 Sale Order that approved the sale to Barclays PLC (“Barclays”) of assets collectively comprising the bulk of the North American investment banking and capital markets business of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) and certain of their affiliates (together “Lehman”).

Introduction

Vendors who sell goods to customers are probably familiar with the issues that arise when the customer later files bankruptcy.

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.  

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.