Permissive Abstention:

On April 3, 2017 the Suffolk County Supreme Court granted Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s motion for summary judgment to recover defaulted mortgage payments in a potentially trailblazing foreclosure decision.  Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. MacPherson, 2017 NY Slip Op 27120 (Sup. Ct. Suff. Co.

TK Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of Takata Corporation, and eleven (11) of its subsidiaries and affiliates have filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 17-11375).

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently held that a bankruptcy debtor’s Chapter 11 proceeding should not be dismissed as filed in bad faith to delay or avoid foreclosure, but could not confirm the debtor’s proposed plan to lease its commercial property asset to a business that generates income from medical marijuana.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint, which sought to avoid transfers from debtors to the defendant. The complaint failed to state a claim, in part because the defendant could not be deemed an “insider” of the debtor. The court additionally finds that the complaint contains insufficient facts to support various other claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, April A. Wimberg

On June 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal brought by Ropes & Gray of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in PEM Entities LLC v. Eric M. Levin & Howard Shareff. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will have significant implications for business owners making debt investments, including rescue loans, and purchasing the distressed third-party debt of their companies.

Part 1 of this blog series examined a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a debtor’s legal malpractice claims. See, Part 1. Recognizing that bankruptcy courts typically retain related to jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims against a debtor’s pre-petition counsel, this blog now turns to abstention considerations for a legal malpractice strategy.

Keystone Tube Company, LLC and four affiliates, including A.M. Castle & Co. (OTC: CASL), HY-Alloy Steels Company, Keystone Service, Inc. and Total Plastics, Inc., have filed chapter 11 petitions before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 17-11330). The debtors are a specialty metals distribution company.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of LIBOR-manipulation fraud claims brought by a group of hotel-related entities and their investor against a bank and two of its subsidiaries.

In so ruling, the Second Circuit held that:

(a) the borrower and related entities lacked standing to sue because they failed to list their potential claims in their bankruptcy case and the claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel; and

(b) the claims of the investor and guarantors were untimely and barred by the law of the case.

The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.