On October 31, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit interpreted Maryland law in ruling that a bank’s security interest in a Chapter 11 debtor’s property created by a deed of trust that was executed before, but recorded after, the Internal Revenue Service filed a tax lien, had priority over the tax lien.
Background
In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC, et al., 486 B.R. 286 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
On November 4th, the Federal Bankruptcy Court granted the SIPC Trustee's motion to establish procedures for the issuance of subpoenas for document production and depositions in connection with the SIPC Trustee's independent investigation into the business and affairs of MF Global. Access to documents produced by witnesses and attendance at examinations will be limited to the SIPC Trustee and his professionals. The SIPC, SEC and CFTC will have access to the discovery upon the execution of confidentiality agreements.
Introduction
Avondale Gateway Center Entitlement, LLC v. National Bank of Arizona, et al. (In re Avondale Gateway Center Entitlement, LLC), 2011 WL 1376997 (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California recently held that the filing of a bankruptcy petition by a borrower can void a trustee sale even where the petition is filed after the trustee sale, so long as the borrower files the petition before the execution of the trustee's deed upon sale. In re: Gonzales 2011 WL3328508 (Bkrtcy. C.D.Cal. August 1, 2011).
Florida’s proceedings supplementary statute (Fla. Stat. 56.29) provides a wide range of collection options to judgment creditors. Over the years, courts inconsistently applied various parts of the statute, which had remained virtually unchanged since its enactment approximately a century ago. The result was widespread confusion among the courts and practitioners concerning how parties were summoned into court, how to commence proceedings, and parties’ rights under the statute.
Though the shareholders of a corporation did not sign a corporate sale agreement, they were considered to be the sellers of the corporation, and therefore were entitled to avail themselves of the indemnification provisions under the agreement, ruled the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See In re NuNet, Inc., 348 B.R. 300 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006).
In order to get the information necessary to seize a debtor's assets or garnish his income, Rule 60.18 of the Rules of Court permit a creditor to require a debtor to attend an examination under oath before a court reporter and be questioned in relation to:
(a) the reason for non-payment or non-performance of the judgment;
(b) the debtor's income and property;
(c) the debts owed to and by the debtor;
(d) the disposal the debtor has made of any property either before or after the making of the order;
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a severance payment made to an executive who worked for both Enron Corp. (“Enron”) and various affiliates of Enron prior to Enron’s filing for bankruptcy was a preferential transfer that could be avoided by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”).1 In reaching this conclusion, the Bankruptcy Court rejected the argument that the severance payment was an “ordinary course” transaction that was protected from avoidance.