On July 2nd, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court's finding that, under Kentucky law, a bank did not perfect its security interest in an auto loan until that security interest was noted on the title. Because perfection did not occur within 20 days after the debtor received possession of the auto, Section 547(c)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code did not protect the bank's loan from avoidance as a preferential transfer. Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Brock.

On September 19th, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the exception to Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge for debts resulting from a violation of state or federal securities laws applies when the debtor himself is not culpable for the securities violation that caused the debt. The case involved an attorney who was required by court order to return the unearned retainer paid by a company that engaged in securities fraud. The attorney filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy before he was technically required to return the money.

On June 14th, the First Circuit modified the bankruptcy court's $250,000 sanction award against a mortgage servicer who erroneously claimed to be the mortgage holder. The mortgage servicer did not deliberately or intentionally seek to mislead the bankruptcy court and its actions were not prejudicial. First Circuit therefore modified the award to $5,000. In re Jacalyn S. Nosek.  

Sending the Debtors back to the drawing board after almost three years in bankruptcy, in a 139 page opinion, the Bankruptcy Court has for the second time denied confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization for Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WaMu”), which was the owner of the largest savings bank ever to be seized by the FDIC.

On June 15th, the Second Circuit held that district courts may issue anti-litigation injunctions barring bankruptcy filings as part of their broad equitable powers in the context of an SEC receivership. SEC v. Byers. Reuters reported on the involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed by creditors which prompted the district court's anti-litigation order.

On June 28th, the Second Circuit held that payments made by Enron to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity were not avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the Court answers in the affirmative an issue of first impression among the appellate courts: whether the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 546(e), which shields settlement payments from avoidance in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer's payments to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity.

On June 7th, the US Supreme Court addressed the calculation of a Chapter 13 debtor's projected "disposable income" under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. When a bankruptcy court calculates a debtor's projected disposable income, the court may account for changes in the debtor's income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation. Hamilton v. Lanning.  

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a bankruptcy court’s ruling that, where subordination agreements lacked explicit provisions addressing the payment of post-petition interest on senior unsecured debt, the agreements were ambiguous, and an inquiry into the parties’ intent was required. After probing the facts and analyzing New York law, the bankruptcy court determined that the contracting parties did not intend to subordinate the junior unsecured debt to post-petition interest on the senior debt.

Background

On May 18th, the Second Circuit, applying the Supreme Court's holding in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. U.S., 130 S.Ct. 1324 (2010), reversed a trial court order finding that provisions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act that prohibit debt relief agencies from advising clients to incur more debt were overbroad and unconstitutional when applied to attorneys.

On June 23rd, the First Circuit addressed the priority of claims asserted by senior noteholders and junior noteholders of debt issued by an insolvent bank. It affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that the parties did not intend for the senior noteholders to receive post-petition interest payments prior to the junior noteholders receiving a distribution. In re: Bank of New England Corporation, Debtor.