In re Cook, 481 B.R. 265 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2012) –

Kline v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Kline), 172 B.R. 98 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2012) –

The Bankruptcy Code sets forth the relative priority of claims against a debtor and the waterfall in which such claims are typically paid. In order for a court to confirm a plan over a dissenting class of creditors – what is commonly called a “cram-down” – the Bankruptcy Code demands thateither (i) the dissenting class receives the full value of its claim, or (ii) no classes junior to that class receive any property under the plan on account of their junior claims or interests. This is known as the “absolute priority rule.”

On June 7, 2019, Judge Dennis Montali of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of California San Francisco Division found that FERC’s finding that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. bankruptcy court over wholesale power agreements was “unenforceable in bankruptcy court and of no force on the parties before it.” Judge Montali further noted that if necessary, the U.S. bankruptcy court will “enjoin FERC from perpetuating its attempt to exercise power it wholly lacks.” At issue, on review by the bankruptcy court, was whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

In re Appalachian Fuel, LLC, 521 B.R. 779 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2014) –

In re Arenas, 514 B.R. 887 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2014) –

The U.S. trustee sought to dismiss “for cause” a chapter 7 case filed by a marijuana grower and his wife. The debtors countered by moving to convert to a chapter 13 case. The case turned on the impact of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Trauner v. State Bank & Trust Co. (In re Solid Rock Development Corp.), 481 B.R. 221 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2012) –

In re D’Mello, 473 B.R. 207 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011) –

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit (BAP) recently held that a mortgagee that held a collateral assignment of rents on property in which the debtor had no equity was not adequately protected by cash collateral orders entered by the bankruptcy court that granted the lender a "replacement lien" on post-petition rents.

In Witt v. United Cos. Lending Corp. (“In re Witt”), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 13 debtors are not permitted to bifurcate undersecured home mortgage loans into separate secured and unsecured claims. In re Witt, 113 F.3d at 509. Recently, the Court overruled this twenty-two-year-old decision in an en banc opinion, Hurlburt v. Black, No. 17-2449, 2019 WL 2237966 (4th Cir. 2019).