A New York bankruptcy court recently allowed a pro se debtor to discharge over $200,000 in student loan debt, vehemently rejecting as “punitive” more recent legal authority concerning how student loan debts may be discharged in bankruptcy.
While section 503(b)(9) claims deserve priority payment over general unsecured claims, they do not provide a basis for stripping a debtor’s defenses in determining the allowed amount of a section 503(b)(9) claim.
Note: Pepper Hamilton LLP serves as co-counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the Committee) in the ADI case. The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and not of the Committee.
Back in the mists of time, a seller that had a valid reclamation claim but was denied the return of its goods was entitled to an administrative expense claim (a claim with a higher priority than a general unsecured claim and thus a better chance of getting paid) or a lien on the debtor’s assets. The 2005 amendment to § 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code changed all that by stripping away those alternative remedies.
On December 12, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part a bankruptcy court’s assertion of exclusive and unlimited jurisdiction over certain of FirstEnergy Solutions’ (“FES”) power purchase agreements that FERC had previously approved under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) and that FES sought to reject in bankruptcy.
In re SR Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 506 B.R. 121 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2014) –
A group of lenders moved to dismiss the debtor’s bankruptcy case on the basis that it was filed in bad faith, or in the alternative asked the court to find that the debtor was a “single asset real estate” and then to grant the lenders relief from the automatic stay.
In re Residential Capital, LLC, 508 B.R. 851 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –
An oversecured creditor claimed post-petition interest at the contract default rate. The debtors and the post-confirmation liquidating trust objected, arguing that the lender should be limited to the non-default rate.