From the consumer plaintiffs’ perspective, a recent appellate decision in Rundgren v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA, is far from Utopia.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions in July of 2014 that will make life for judgment creditors much more complicated. On July 15, 2014, the court issued Attorney’s Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. v. Town Bank, 2014 WI 63, ¶ 25, ___ Wis. 2d _____ and Associated Bank N.A. v. Collier, 2014 WI 62, ¶ 23-25, 38, ____Wis. 2d ______. These cases change the way judgment creditors must act to obtain a priority interest in the personal property of a debtor.

On June 20, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 500 (Tex. 2014). In Ritchie, a minority shareholder in a closely held corporation attempted to force the majority shareholders to buy-out the minority shareholder’s interest in the corporation by bringing a claim of shareholder oppression under § 11.404 of the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC), the Texas receivership statute.

In re Residential Capital, LLC, 508 B.R. 851 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –

An oversecured creditor claimed post-petition interest at the contract default rate. The debtors and the post-confirmation liquidating trust objected, arguing that the lender should be limited to the non-default rate.

Judge Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted class claim certification to a group of former MF Global employees seeking payment on account of unpaid accrued vacation time. 

The Beverly Hills Bar Association’s Bankruptcy Section recently held a program discussing the three recent bankruptcy-related Supreme Court decisions: Law v.

In a petition for a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs alleging harm by exposure to the flavoring agent diacetyl have argued that the Third Circuit erred in ruling that Aaroma Holdings cannot be held liable for the actions of diacetyl producer Emoral Inc., which Aaroma purchased following the alleged exposures. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, No. 14-71 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed July 18, 2014).

Section 506(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides common-sense instruction that the allowed amount of a secured claim is equal to the value of the collateral securing the claim and that a claim is unsecured to the extent the claim exceeds such collateral value.  The section goes on to provide that the value of collateral ”shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property, and in conjunction with any hearing on

House bill H.R. 2533 was introduced three years ago with much fanfare by the then Chairman of the  House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 2533 proposes amending “title 28 of the United States Code with  respect to proper venue for cases filed by corporations under chapter 11 of title 11 of such Code.” It is  intended to reduce the number of jurisdictions available for filing a bankruptcy case by effectively  eliminating a debtor’s “place of incorporation” as a venue option.

As we expected might happen in light of the Court’s previous order, the parties in the Detroit bankruptcy appeal agreed to postpone oral argument.  In a letter to the parties, however, Judge Gibbons wrote that the appeals should be resolved before near the beginning of the hearing on the confirmation