A recent bankruptcy court ruling is a reminder that bank accounts established for certain specific purposes may not be subject to general setoff rights.

Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code preserves a creditor’s right of setoff under the Bankruptcy Code. To exercise this right, “mutuality” must exist—i.e., the debtor must owe an obligation to the creditor and the creditor a corresponding obligation to the debtor. Normally a straightforward analysis, determining whether mutuality is present becomes more difficult when there are more than two parties.

The revisions to Ohio’s exemption law set forth in O.R.C. §2329.66 become effective on September 25, 2008 by Senate Bill 281 that was signed by Governor Strickland on June 27, 2008. The purpose of the changes to Ohio’s exemption law is to increase the exemptions for property that a debtor may hold exempt from execution, garnishment or sale for the satisfaction of a judgment. Ohio’s current exemptions have not been revised since 1979, and the current exemptions do not reflect the costs of living in 2008.

In In re Bryan Road LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida considered whether a waiver of the automatic stay provision included in a prepetition workout agreement is enforceable in the debtor’s subsequent bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court enforced the waiver and held the creditor was not bound by the automatic stay after engaging in a four-factor analysis of the agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution. The Bankruptcy Court cautioned, however, that relief from stay provisions are neither per se enforceable nor self-executing.

A federal bankruptcy imposed sanctions against two mortgage companies and their attorneys for making misrepresentations as to which party was the true holder of the mortgage and note. Decisions such as the one in In re Nosek resonate with particular significance as the mortgage crisis continues to have widespread ramifications.  

We have previously reported on the procedurally tortured case between the New York Insurance Department, as liquidator of Nassau Insurance Company, and Jeanne Di Loreto to recover assets contended to have been diverted from Nassau. In the latest salvo, defendants New York Insurance Department, William Costigan, and Eric DiNallo, Mark Peters and Andrew Lorin separately moved to dismiss plaintiff Di Loreto’s Complaints seeking to prevent execution of a judgment obtained against her by the New York Liquidation Bureau.

Introduction

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of a motion by a debtor’s sole director to modify the automatic stay to allow payment of defense costs under the A-side coverage of the debtor’s directors and officers liability insurance policy. In re MILA, Inc., 2010 WL 455328 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2010).

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York concluded that a landlord
who obtains a judgment of possession and warrant of
eviction prepetition, yet is stayed from executing on the
warrant due to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing, may not be
entitled to post-petition rent as an administrative expense.
In In re Association of Graphic Communications, Inc., No. 07-
10278 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010), the court decided
that, under New York law, the prepetition warrant of

Kary Brown collided with a car while he was driving a truck for Koetter Woodworking. Melvin Kimbrell, a passenger in the car, suffered injuries. Kimbrell brought a personal injury action against both Brown and Smith in October of 2008, although he did not serve process until June of 2009. When Brown advised the district court that he had filed a bankruptcy petition in February 2008, the court stayed the proceeding as to him.

On 13 December 2009, the Dubai Government issued Decree No. 57 for 2009, in response to the widely publicized concerns over Dubai World’s debt position. The decree established a tribunal seated within the Dubai International Financial Centre, tasked with hearing and deciding claims against Dubai World, its subsidiaries and any person related to the settlement of the financial obligations of those organizations (Dubai World). The Decree also created an entirely new insolvency law which will be exclusively applicable to Dubai World.

Why was Decree No. 57 issued?