Previously on Asbestos Case Tracker, we took a look at the successful efforts of certain states to combat manipulation and abuse of the asbestos bankruptcy trust system. These states passed legislation that prevents claimants from being doubly compensated for alleged exposures to asbestos-containing products manufactured, used, or supplied by bankrupt and viable companies.

On November 27, 2019, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali issued a Memorandum Decision on Inverse Condemnation (“Memorandum Decision”) in PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric’s (together, “PG&E”) Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 19-30088).

When a creditor is the target of a bankruptcy trustee or debtor’s claim to take back money paid before bankruptcy on a legitimate debt, it’s bitter justice. The concept is fair enough: pulling funds back into the bankruptcy estate so they can be redistributed to creditors in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme and on a pro rata basis. In practice, though, it’s hard to see the fairness of giving back money you were entitled to receive. Two statutory amendments that will take effect in late February of 2020 have the potential to put a damper on some preference claims.

We here at the Global Restructuring & Insolvency Developments (GRID to our friends) have been following the tuition clawback wars for a few years – the cases in which a bankruptcy trustee sues a college to return tuition that the bankrupt parent paid for their child when the parent was otherwise stiffing other creditors.

In another loss for the cannabis industry, a district court recently affirmed the dismissal of chapter 11 petitions filed by companies that sold product used by both state-licensed marijuana growers and non-marijuana growers. The district court’s decision in Way to Grow, Inc. demonstrates that the door that was opened by the Ninth Circuit in Garvin v. Cook Invs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held, in a case of first impression in that circuit, that a secured creditor’s failure to turn over collateral repossessed prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition does not violate the automatic stay.

A copy of the opinion inIn re Denby-Peterson is available at: Link to Opinion.

The circuit courts continue to wrestle over the duties imposed by the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay on creditors concerning turnover of a debtor’s impounded vehicle. Is a creditor required to automatically turn over the vehicle as soon as the bankruptcy petition is filed, or can it retain possession while awaiting an order of the bankruptcy court adjudicating turnover in an adversary proceeding?

“[A] secured creditor [has no] affirmative obligation under the automatic stay to return a debtor’s [repossessed] collateral to the bankruptcy estate immediately upon notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Oct. 28, 2019. In re Denby-Peterson, 2019 WL 5538570, *1 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2019). Affirming the lower courts, the Third Circuit joined “the minority of our sister courts – the Tenth and D.C. Circuits” with its holding.

In Kinnick v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that sending a collection letter to a bankruptcy debtor provided that debtor with standing to file a claim based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the creditor outside of the bankruptcy case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court lacks the power to enforce discharge injunctions entered in other districts, and that the debtors’ particular private education loans were not excepted from discharge.

A copy of the opinion in Crocker v. Navient Solutions, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion.