Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Tucker, No. 09-5867 (6th Cir. 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In resolving a conflict within the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals has held that chapter 13 debtors who propose in their plan of reorganization to cure the arrearage on their mortgage loan are required to pay all fees and costs required by the mortgage and non-bankruptcy law, even if the mortgage lender is undersecured. Put another way, mortgage lenders may include such fees and costs in their proofs of claim.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2011, the Hon. Alan Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reversed the October 30, 2009 fraudulent conveyance finding issued by the Bankruptcy Court in the TOUSA case as it pertained to lenders involved in TOUSA’s Transeastern joint venture.
- Landlord/Tenant: lessor did not breach commercial lease by failing to complete construction by date certain where lease did not provide date by which property was to be ready for occupation – 326-330 St. Armands Circle, LLC v. GEE22, LLC, No. 2D12-2395 (Fla.
In a recent decision1, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found the standard for sealing under § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code was not met and declined to seal a settlement agreement, despite requests from the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") and the counterparties to the settlement agreement to do so. Confidentiality was an essential condition of the settlement. In addition, the United States trustee supported the motion to seal, arguing that the standard for sealing had been met.
On February 1st, the Tenth Circuit held that Deutsche Bank failed to establish it was a "party of interest" entitled to relief from a bankruptcy petition's automatic stay. After Deutsche Bank's foreclosure of the Millers' home was stayed by the latter's bankruptcy petition, the bank obtained relief from the stay. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. The bank failed to provide the original note to the bankruptcy court and did not provide the original or a copy to the bankruptcy appellate panel.
In a decision in In re Enron Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63129, No. 05-01025 (S.D.N.Y. August 27, 2007), the Honorable Shira Scheindlin, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, held that the sale of a claim that is subject to equitable subordination under section 510(c) or disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code may insulate the claim from subordination and disallowance when asserted against the buyer of the claim. At first blush the decision may be, and has been, read by some to offer relief and clarity to distressed debt investors.
A recent federal district court appellate decision issued in the Enron chapter 11 case1 has ruled that the postpetition transfer of a prepetition bankruptcy claim from one party to another may insulate the transferred claim against certain types of attack based solely on conduct by a prior holder of the same claim. Whether a particular claim is protected depends upon how the claim was transferred.
If you hold a claim in bankruptcy by way of a transfer, you may need to be sure the transaction was accomplished by a sale and not merely by an assignment. Yet another decision highlights the growing complexity in bankruptcy claims as we discuss below.
In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “U.S. Court”) exercised its abstention powers and dismissed an involuntary chapter 11 petition filed against an Argentine company, Compania de Alimentos Fargo, SA (“Fargo”).1 Fargo, a debtor in an insolvency proceeding in Argentina, had moved to dismiss the involuntary petition principally because its Argentine bankruptcy case was still pending.