(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 1, 2016)
The bankruptcy court addresses the issue of whether the debtor’s prepetition claim for a surcharge before the Public Service Commission is property of the estate. The pre-petition receiver for the debtor argued that it was not, because the debtor abandoned its assets prepetition in the PSC action. The court disagrees, finding that legal title was not severed in the prepetition proceedings, and thus the bankruptcy trustee has control and authority over the surcharge claim. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
As the Supreme Court recently reminded us in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, not all orders in bankruptcy cases are immediately appealable as a matter of right. Only those orders deemed sufficiently “final” may be appealed without leave under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).
On August 23, 2016, Judge Sue L. Robinson of the Delaware District Court issued an Order denying an appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal. The decision was issued in a appeals arising from the Molycorp Bankruptcy (which is docketed, at case 15-11357 in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court). The appeals are docketed in the District Court as Case Numbers 16-286 and 16-288. A copy of the Opinion is available here.
(7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016)
State unemployment benefits are paid pursuant to a system that relies on trust. Benefits are paid based on representations made by claimants that they are out of work and that they continue to seek out full-time work. If a claimant finds part-time work, then benefits are reduced accordingly.
A recent opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan (the “Court”) addresses a Chapter 7 debtor’s attempt to discharge a debt owed to the State of Michigan for overpaid unemployment benefits, and penalties and interest stemming from the overpayment.
On August 24, 2016, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court overruling an objection to claim for reclamation. The decision was issued in the Reichold Holdings US, Inc. Bankruptcy (Case No. 14-12237) in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. A copy of the Opinion is available here.
In the decision of In re Metroplex on the Atlantic, LLC, 545 B.R. 786 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that an easement is an in rem property interest, subject to sale free and clear under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by filing a time-barred proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding. See Nelson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2016 WL 3672073 (8th Cir.
Editor’s Note: This is a new one for us at The Bankruptcy Cave. We are starting a series of primers, covering a narrow range of law but with more depth than just “here’s a recent case.” And also, we have our first edition of “The Bankruptcy Cave Embedded Briefs” – top quality briefs on a certain issue, feel free to download to your own form files or come back and grab ’em when you need ’em. Let us know what you think – we are always trying to improve things around here for our readers.
Federal bankruptcy law confers on trustees the power, in some circumstances, to “avoid”––that is, claw back––from creditors money transferred to those creditors pre-bankruptcy to pay the debtor’s obligations. However, if such a transfer was “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution, it may be protected from avoidance under Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e). The transfers at issue here are not ordinary loan payments to lenders by debtors, but, rather, transfers between third parties that make use of banks or other financial institutions.