Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that overdraft payments advanced by Banks which are later repaid by their customer constitute preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. In re Agriprocessors, Inc., involved a meat packing company which periodically overdrew its bank accounts, and the bank issued provisional credit to cover the overdrafts. The bank initially denominated those overdrafts as “intraday” overdrafts until the midnight settlement deadline, at which point they became “true” overdrafts.

Can a bankruptcy trustee recover a fraudulent transfer made six, eight, ten years ago? Bankruptcy courts around the country are answering that question with a resounding “yes”, so long as the IRS holds an unsecured claim against the debtor. If more courts arrive at this conclusion, creditors face the risk that trustees will step into the shoes of the IRS to borrow its ten-year statute of limitations for the recovery of fraudulent transfers.

The Bankruptcy Code provides bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditor committees with “avoidance powers” that allow them to set aside and recover certain transfers that a debtor made before filing for bankruptcy.[1]  These avoidance powers are, however, limited by a number of exceptions enumerated in the Bankruptcy Code, including the securities safe harbor at § 546(e).  Section 546(e) protects from avoidance any transfer “made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . .

On March 8, 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized certain changes to its mortgage servicing rules. The Bureau issued a final rule1 to provide mortgage servicers with more flexibility and certainty regarding requirements to communicate with borrowers under the CFPB’s 2016 mortgage servicing amendments. 

Background

On February 1, 2018, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia in In re: Kenneth R. Pierce found that the printed name on the debtor’s driver’s license was the name that was important for Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) security interest perfection purposes (No. 17–60154–EJC, 2018 WL 679677 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2018)).   

Summary: A California appellate court has held that a lender that allegedly directed its borrower to default on her loan in order to qualify for a home mortgage modification may be held liable in tort for its mishandling of her application, because the lender exceeded the role of a conventional lender.  [Rossetta vs. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2017 Westlaw 6422567 (Cal.App.).]

Context

If you are a licensee under a trademark license, what happens to your license if the licensor winds up in the Bankruptcy Court? A recent United States Circuit Court case demonstrates how uncertain the answer is at this time.

Some bankruptcy basics

Filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy as a consumer is a voluntary decision. Once a Chapter 13 case has been filed, it is also up to the debtors to dismiss the case if they so choose.

What happens if, after a Chapter 13 case has been filed and a plan confirmed, a debtor decides to dismiss the case but the Chapter 13 trustee is holding funds that would have otherwise been distributed to creditors?

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.