The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida recently held that, at a minimum, “surrender” under Bankruptcy Code §§ 521 and 1325 means a debtor cannot take an overt act that impedes a secured creditor from foreclosing its interest in secured property.

In so holding, the Court found that actively contesting a post-bankruptcy foreclosure case is inconsistent with a “surrender” of the property.

On September 24, Southern District of Florida District Court Judge James I. Cohn issued an opinion affirming an order approving the settlement of a debtor’s breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, and mismanagement claims against its former directors and officers barring non-debtors’ claims against the former directors and officers entered by Southern District of Florida Bankruptcy Court Judge Raymond B.

Prior to September 1, 2015, procedures in consumer chapter 13 bankruptcy cases varied greatly across the divisions of the Middle District of Florida, creating vastly different workflows for creditors and attorneys with cases pending in multiple divisions across the District. (The Middle District of Florida comprises four divisions, including Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Fort Myers.) As part of the U.S.

Some bankruptcy cases can have long tails with issues developing years after the entities confirm their chapter 11 plans.  That seems to be particularly true when cases deal with mass torts.  As the recent case of Piper Aircraft Corporation demonstrates, an issue can arise in a chapter 11 case over twenty years after the debtor’s plan was confirmed.  In

Foreclosure defense and bankruptcy often go hand in hand, but sometimes it seems like the left hand doesn’t talk to the right. This has proven especially common with bankruptcy plans that propose to “surrender” real property encumbered by a mortgage. The term “surrender” is not defined in the bankruptcy code. As a result, lenders and borrowers often interpret the term differently. For example, most lenders interpret surrender to mean not defending a foreclosure.

A recent court ruling is a good reminder to health care providers that bankruptcy may not (as is sometimes suggested) be a safe harbor for providers in danger of being forced out of business by the loss of their Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements.

Introduction

Law360, New York (July 17, 2015, 11:24 AM ET) -- On June 26, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an opinion on consolidated appeals arising from the Bayou Shores SNF LLC bankruptcy case with potentially broad implications for health care bankruptcy cases. At the heart of the dispute before the district court was whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enjoin the termination of, and subsequently authorize the assumption of, certain Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements.

On June 26, 2015, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an opinion on consolidated appeals arising from the Bayou Shores SNF, LLC bankruptcy case with potentially broad implications for healthcare bankruptcy cases.  At the heart of the dispute before the District Court was whether the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enjoin the termination of, and subsequently authorize the assumption of, certain Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements in the bankruptcy case.  As discussed below, the District Court held the Medicare jurisdictional bar set fort

On May 13, 2015, Judge Michael G.