Practitioners generally identify “excusable neglect” as the standard that bankruptcy courts apply in determining whether to allow a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. A creditor who lets the bar date pass finds itself in the undesirable position of having to persuade the bankruptcy court that its neglect to file a timely proof of claim was excusable.

When is a claim contingent? When is a claim subject to a bona fide dispute and who has the burden of proof? When is a claim against a person? When is a claim too small to count? When is an alleged debtor generally not paying his debts as they come due? Are we there yet?

The recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ECP Commercial II LLC v. Town Center Flats, LLC (In re Town Center Flats, LLC), gives us at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog a reason to revisit the issue of “absolute” assignments of rent.

Landlords dealing with troubled tenants often enter into termination agreements that dictate terms for the consensual terminations of unexpired leases. Among other benefits, such termination agreements provide certainty and allow landlords to move on from unprofitable tenant relationships. Additionally, by entering into termination agreements, troubled tenants can be prevented from later assuming or assigning such terminated leases to an undesirable third-party if the tenant later files for bankruptcy.

Your business receives payment for goods or services that your business provided to a customer (“XYZ Inc.”). Your business is paid from the customer’s corporate account. You know that the payment came from XYZ Inc.’s corporate account because the check or credit card used for payment is in the name of XYZ Inc. However, three years later, you receive a letter from the “trustee” of XYZ Inc., now a debtor in bankruptcy, demanding payment of the money your business received for having provided goods or services to XYZ Inc.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court rules that the government’s claim for penalties incurred by the debtor for false representations in unemployment benefit applications are not dischargeable. The debtor conceded that the debt for repayment of benefits was not dischargeable but disputed that the penalties imposed were dischargeable. The court finds that the penalties arose out of the fraudulent representations and thus were not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Opinion below.

Judge: Lorch

The failure of debtors to accurately list and value assets in their bankruptcy schedules is certainly not a new phenomenon. Recently, however, we are witnessing an increase in bankruptcy cases where debtors are using clever and deliberate means to omit assets or disguise the true value of their assets in an attempt to thwart recovery by creditors. While the U.S. trustee's or a creditor's remedy for such bad acts is to seek a denial of the debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The debtor asserted numerous claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state law causes of action in his complaint. The court finds the debtor does not have standing to assert certain claims under FCRA. The court also addresses issues of preemption under FCRA and various statutes of limitations. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Debtor: Pro Se

(6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the order granting summary judgment to the creditor, finding a debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Summary judgment was appropriate because the debtor was collaterally estopped from defending against the fraud claim. The creditor had obtained a default judgment against the debtor, post-petition, in another court as a sanction. The court holds that the entry of the default judgment was not a violation of the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Boggs

Attorney for Debtor: Jonathan Rudman Bunn

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2016)