Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed the dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action based on res judicata and the statute of limitations, holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association and its progeny controlled.

In so ruling, the Court confirmed that a second foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations or res judicata where continuing payment defaults occurred within the five years preceding the filing of the second foreclosure action. 

On September 22, 2017, the First Circuit issued a decision[1] holding that the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “UCC”) appointed in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Title III debt adjustment case[2] (the “Title III Case”) has an unrestricted right to i

SUMMARY

On October 19, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated “a bankruptcy court can enjoin any civil action if the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action or in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” In re: Fundamental Long Term Care, No. 16-16462, 2017 WL 46826791 at *8 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2017) (emphasis added).

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the Chapter 11 trustee, holding the trustee is entitled to recover approximately $280,000 in post-petition transfers and recover $40,000 in prepetition payments. The debtors repaid a post-petition loan that was not approved by the bankruptcy court and which was not in the ordinary course. The prepetition payments were preferential and the new value defense and ordinary course defenses do not apply. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Trustee: Fowler Bell PLLC, Matthew D. Ellison

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 16, 2017)

The bankruptcy court overrules the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claimed exemption. The debtor moved to reopen her case, add a personal injury cause of action to her schedules, and claim an exemption in a portion of the recovery on the cause of action. The court holds that Law v. Siegel is applicable, and thus the court does not have authority to deny the exemption even if bad faith exists. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Darren K. Mexic

Trustee: Jerry Burns

The United States Second Circuit has issued its ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials casesresolving three separate appeals by different groups of creditors of Judge Bricetti’s judgment in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, which affirmed

In a move that surprised bankruptcy practitioners and other observers, a Delaware bankruptcy court recently rescinded an order approving a $275 million break-up fee relating to a failed merger.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)