In nearly every bankruptcy proceeding there is some constituency that ends up having its claim or interest impaired. Not surprisingly, therefore, these same constituencies would like to avoid that outcome by restricting the debtor’s ability to commence bankruptcy in the first place.

HERE LIONS ROAM: CISG AS THE MEASURE OF A CLAIM'S

VALUE AND VALIDITY AND A DEBTOR'S

DISCHARGEABILITY

Amir Shachmurove*

INTRODUCTION ............................................ ..... 463

I. A COMEDY OF ERRORS .............. 468

II. RELEVANT BANKRUPTCY LAW: THE CODE AND THE RULES ............ 470

A. Code and Rules .......................... ......... 470

B. Determination of a Claim 's Validity and Value .............. 471

C. Temporary Valuation Pursuant to Rule 3018(a) .... ........ 475

Branch Bank & Trust Co. v. Michael’s Enterprises of Virginia, Inc. (In re Michael’s Enterprises of Virginia, Inc.), 519 B.R. 916 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014)  –

A mortgage lender sought sanctions against the debtor, its sole shareholder and its attorney.  It alleged that the bankruptcy petition was filed for an improper purpose.

DeGiacomo v. Traverse (In re Traverse), 753 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2014) –

Pinellas County Property Appraiser v. Read (In re Read), 692 F3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2012) –

Under Section 505(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, generally a bankruptcy court may determine the amount or legality of any tax. However, under Section 505(a)(2)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code ad valorem real or personal property taxes cannot be contested if the applicable time period under non-bankruptcy law has expired.

Hiraldo v. Banco Popular Depuerto Rico (In re Hiraldo), 471 B.R. 676 (D. P.R. 2012) –

In the well-publicized opinion of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC et al., 599 F. 3d 298 (3rd Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,1 held that Section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code)2 is unambiguous and is to be read in the disjunctive, thus allowing a proponent of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization to use the "cram down" power under subsection (iii) of that Section without allowing a secured creditor to credit bid on a sale proposed as part of the plan.

The Southern District of West Virginia recently held that the reporting of an account being paid through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan as having an outstanding balance or past due payments does not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In re Castle Home Builders, Inc., 520 B.R. 98 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2014) –

The debtors obtained confirmation of plans of reorganization that restructured prepetition mortgage loans.  When the servicer for some of the loans continued to ignore the terms of the plans, the reorganized debtors sought enforcement of the court’s confirmation order and sanctions.

In re Charles Street African Methodist Episcopal Church of Boston, 510 B.R. 453 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2014) –

In connection with a proposed sale of real property, a chapter 11 debtor sought to prohibit the mortgagee from submitting a credit bid. It contended that there was “cause” based on its argument that the mortgagee’s claims were subject to a bona fide dispute.