ASARCO Standard

When the real estate market and financial markets tumbled during 2007-2008, the fallout was felt by financial institutions from large multi-billion dollar banks to small Community Banks. As these banks struggled to stay alive, a trend emerged for bank holding companies to market and sell a distressed bank through Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. This alternative was utilized in many instances as opposed to a traditional “reorganization plan” or takeover by the FDIC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a court cannot extinguish a secured creditor’s state-law security interests for failure to file a proof of claim during the administration of an equity receivership over entities involved in a Ponzi scheme.

A copy of the opinion in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wells Fargo Bank is available at: Link to Opinion.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2017)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 13, 2017)

Following trial, the bankruptcy court enters judgment against the debtor, finding the loan debt owed to the bank is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The court finds that the debtor made false representations with respect to his ownership interest in real property and the existence of a debt owed, which representations were reasonably relied upon by the bank when making the loan. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Anthony R. Jost

Attorney for Defendant: KC Cohen

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2017)

On March 30, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals filed an opinion regarding whether the filing of a mechanic’s lien after the commencement of a bankruptcy case violates the automatic stay. Given the frequent involvement of many companies in Delaware bankruptcy cases, you should be aware of the Third Circuit’s ruling.

A bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of California recently issued a decision that is sure to raise appellate eyebrows.

Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.

Dishonest plaintiffs can make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to successfully move for summary judgment. Indeed, a dishonest plaintiff who understands the legal landscape can easily defeat summary judgment by claiming that there exists “direct evidence” of discrimination in the form of an admission by management that the challenged employment action was motivated by discriminatory animus (e.g., “my supervisor told me he was firing me because of my age”).