In December 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor “under this title” to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 540 B.R. 109 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015), the bankruptcy court ruled that, although a chapter 11 plan proposed by solvent debtors need not provide for the payment of postpetition interest on unsecured claims to render the claims unimpaired, the plan must provide that the court has the discretion to award such interest at an appropriate rate “under equitable principles.” The ruling highlights the important distinction between the allowance of a claim in bankruptcy and the permissible treatment of the claim under a chapter 11 plan.

It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement.  However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?

It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement.  However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?

In Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 15-527 (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2016), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether a debtor who has been discharged in a bankruptcy can sue in a district court under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), as opposed to seeking relief in the bankruptcy court.

Lenders and secured creditors often require that debtor-customers direct all receivable collections into a lockbox, hoping to wrangle any available proceeds to apply to their debtors’ outstanding debt. In requiring a debtor or its customer to remit payments to a lockbox, however, creditors may be overlooking a potential source of significant liability. A creditor using a lockbox may unwittingly expose itself to greater risk and liability than just a debtor’s default if it receives funds that were collected as sales tax on a debtor’s goods or services.

In the case of Domistyle, Inc., 14-41463 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2015), the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit affirmed an order of the bankruptcy court requiring a secured creditor to reimburse the trustee for expenses paid to preserve real property subject to the creditor’s lien until the debtor’s eventual surrender of the property to the creditor.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a debtor in bankruptcy can pursue claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") in district court for trying to collect a discharged debt, reversing a judgment dismissing the FDCPA claims and requiring the plaintiff seek relief in bankruptcy court.

Under long-established common law, loans must be paid only upon maturity, not before. This "perfect tender in time" rule is the default rule in a number of jurisdictions. Many indentures and credit agreements therefore either bar prepayments altogether with "no call" provisions or permit prepayments with "make whole" provisions that require the payment of a specified premium to make up for the loss of future income.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida recently overruled a debtor's objection to a mortgagee's secured claim and denied the debtor's motion to determine secured status, holding that the issues should have been brought by adversary proceeding, and in any event neither Florida's statute of limitations nor its statute of repose barred enforcement of the note and mortgage.  A copy of the opinion is attached.