The following Middle Market insight* originally appeared in the Spring 2015 edition of Disclosure Statement, the official publication of the Bankruptcy Section of the North Carolina Bar Association.
In re Betchan, 524 B.R. 830 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2015) –
A mortgagee was the highest bidder at a foreclosure sale that took place shortly before the debtor filed bankruptcy. The lender requested relief from the automatic stay in order to evict the debtor on the basis that transfer of the property was completed prepetition so that it was not part of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.
In yesterday’s post, we published a speech in which Harvey Miller discussed how he got started practicing bankruptcy law. Today, we are publishing the text of a speech that Harvey gave in March of 2014 on the 40th anniversary of the Southeastern Bankruptcy Law Institute, at which Harvey was a frequent speaker. In this speech, Harvey looked back at the evolution of bankruptcy law over the past 50 years.
Introduction
On April 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied Defendants’ petition for certiorari in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, declining to take up the issue of whether liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., may be premised on the filing of a proof of claim in bankruptcy.
Asbestos plaintiffs can seek damages in two independent compensation systems: by filing tort claims against solvent defendants and by filing claims with any of the dozens of asbestos bankruptcy trusts established under section 524(g) of the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code. These trusts, typically set up by plaintiffs’ attorneys after a defendant enters bankruptcy, exist to compensate injured workers or the families of deceased workers alleging asbestos exposure.
Why Lawyers Need to Pay More Attention to the Distinctions Between Veil-Piercing and Alter-Ego Theories
Is a rent-stabilized lease in New York a “local public assistance benefit” that is exempt from property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate, or is it merely “a quirk of the regulatory scheme in the New York housing market[?]” That was the question recently decided by the Second Circuit in In re Monteverde.
The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (“PACA”), as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499(a)et seq. provides federal statutory protection to certain qualifying sellers of perishable agricultural products. Congress amended PACA in 1984 to establish a statutory trust for the benefit of all unpaid suppliers or sellers of perishable agricultural commodities or products. PACA defines perishable agricultural commodities as “fresh fruit and fresh vegetables of every kind and character,” whether or not frozen or packed in ice, and cherries in brine. 7 USC § 499(b).
Parties to all legal proceedings - including bankruptcy proceedings - are entitled to Constitutionally protected due process rights, including reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. In the bankruptcy context, the debtor must give known creditors reasonable notice of certain critical events, including the sale of the debtor’s assets and the deadline to file claims against the debtor.