The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s rejection of a proof of claim filed by a creditor where the claim was based upon a debt which was time barred by the creditor’s failure to comply with the applicable state law deadline for pursuing a deficiency judgment following a non-judicial foreclosure. 

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

In Short

The Situation: In cross-border restructuring cases, court-approved insolvency protocols are applied to facilitate communication between U.S. and foreign courts and standardize certain common procedures. The protocols are sometimes adapted to address case-specific issues.

The Result: Case-specific provisions tend to address information-sharing guidelines, claims reconciliation, the management of assets, and dispute resolution.

Two years have passed since the United States Supreme Court passed down a 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges which held that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The chorus is getting louder from the stakeholders in the consumer finance and housing industries for legislative, executive or judicial re-structuring of the CFPB, so the CFPB probably thinks it has it pretty tough right now.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the Federal Foreclosure Bar’s prohibition on nonconsensual foreclosure of assets of the Federal Housing Finance Agency preempted Nevada’s superpriority lien provision and invalidated a homeowners association foreclosure sale that purported to extinguish Freddie Mac’s interest in the property.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion. 

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The creditor’s claim was based on missing restaurant equipment following the termination of a real property lease to the debtor. The court finds the creditor failed to present evidence establishing that the debtor was responsible for the loss. The elements of §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) were not satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Fulton

Attorneys for Debtor: Farmer & Wright, PLLC, Todd A. Farmer

Attorney for Creditor: Steve Vidmer

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies confirmation of the debtors’ proposed Chapter 12 plan. The court first determines that the debtors’ timber operations constitute a “farming operation” under § 101(21). Those operations are ongoing rather than a single cut of all timber at one time. The debtors are eligible to proceed under Chapter 12. However, the debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed plan was feasible. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtors: Michael L. Baker

What Happened: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined five other circuits in holding that the unforeseen business circumstances exception excused WARN notice where an event outside the employer's control that would trigger layoffs was possible but not probable to occur.

The Larger Landscape: While the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have also adopted a probability standard for determining when the unforeseen business circumstances exception applies, the other circuits have not yet ruled on the issue.

This article provides a brief overview of the somewhat related doctrines of setoff and recoupment in the Chapter 11 context. Setoff is recognized in the Bankruptcy Code to offset the claims of creditors and the debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. Recoupment is a common law doctrine of similar effect. Sometimes overlooked by debtors and creditors alike, these doctrines can be of critical consequence in the settling of accounts between a creditor and the bankrupt debtor.

Setoff

(6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)