A debtor cannot recover sanctions or attorneys’ fees under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) when the debtor admits to having suffered no actual damages and the filing of a motion for sanctions was not necessary to remedy a stay violation.[1] Denying the debtor’s motion for sanctions, the U.S.

On March 22, 2010, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a highly anticipated decision in the matter of In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC, 2010 WL 1006647, (3rd Cir. Case No.

The Bankruptcy Protector has previously provided a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevichere and

In In re Woodbridge Grp. of Companies, LLC, No. BR 17-12560-BLS, 2019 WL 4305444 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed an opinion by Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey, and held that a proof of claim will be expunged if the note and loan agreement underlying the claim prohibit assignment and provide that assignment without consent will be “null and void.”

Facts

The Bankruptcy Protector

A Texas bankruptcy judge has determined that a landlord will not be entitled to an administrative claim for post-petition rent as it failed to file and prosecute a timely motion for allowance of the administrative rent claim holding that a previously and timely filed proof of claim is insufficient. In re: Taco Bueno Restaurants Inc., --- B.R --- (Docket No. 18-33678), 2019 WL 4010681 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2019).

The Filing and Lease Rejection

The Bankruptcy Protector recently discussed notable non-bankruptcy provisions that must be consulted to ensure compliance with privacy issues. In this post, we discuss notable Bankruptcy Code provisions and Bankruptcy Rules on these issues.

Section 101(41) of the Bankruptcy Code—Personally Identifiable Information

Privacy issues implicate several Bankruptcy Code sections and Bankruptcy Rules. The debtor must also comply with non-bankruptcy rules concerning privacy to the extent that such rules are not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 959(b).

This article first appeared in Law360.

Add the Eight Circuit to a growing list of courts that have found that a plan of reorganization which proposes better treatment for creditors who have agreed to purchase any leftover securities in an offering (a “backstop agreement”) done pursuant to that plan does not violate the requirement that each claim within a class of creditors receive the same treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4). In re: Peabody Energy Corp., --- F.3d --- (Docket No. 18-1302) (8th Cir. August 9, 2019).

The Peabody Plan

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in BOKF NA v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB (In re MPM Silicones LLC), Case No. 15-2280, 2019 WL 121003 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2019), which had significant ramifications for senior secured creditors. Much has been written about this decision, so a lengthy discussion will not be undertaken here.