The Bottom Line:
The Commission brought an offering fraud action against two long time residential real estate businessmen, Thomas S. Mulholland and James C. Mulholland, Jr. The two defendants had been in the residential real estate business since the 1990s. By 2008 they had raised about $16 million from investors. Thomas and James Mulholland had about 300 properties and apartment building units.
Steven Enright and his wife borrowed money from a bank to buy dairy cows and other improvements for the family dairy farm. The bank loan was secured by assets of the Enrights, and also guaranteed by Steven’s parents, with the parents’ guarantee secured by a mortgage on the dairy farm itself (which was owned by the parents).
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of In Re: McCormick that a recorded North Carolina deed of trust indexed in a county’s grantor/grantee index may nevertheless be avoided by a trustee in bankruptcy if such county has elected a Parcel Identification Number (“PIN”) indexing system and the recorded deed of trust does not appear in such PIN index. This alert briefly describes the PIN system in North Carolina and the McCormick decision’s impact on the need for PINs in deeds of trust recorded in North Carolina counties that have adopted the PIN
In re Coastal Broadcasting Systems, Inc., Case No. 11-10596 (Bankr. D. N.J. July 6, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
At confirmation, the bankruptcy court considered whether the assignment of voting rights in an intercreditor agreement was enforceable. The bankruptcy court noted that various courts had reached differing conclusions, but ultimately found that the voting assignment in the intercreditor agreement before it was enforceable.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re Furrs Supermarkets, Inc., No. 11-01-10779 SA (Bankr. D.N.M. Aug. 15, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Wright v. Owens Corning, 450 B.R. 541 (W.D. Pa. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2012 WL 1759992 (3rd Cir. Pa.) (May 18, 2012).
A New York bankruptcy court recently rejected a debtor’s challenge to a consensual state court judgment (“Judgment”) in favor of mortgagee, General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”), that had accelerated a debt and obtained a prepetition foreclosure judgment against debtor, 410 East 92nd Street (the “Hotel”), in the amount of approximately $74 million. In re: Madison 92nd St. Associates LLC, 472 B.R. 189 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012).
In re WL Homes LLC, Case No. 09-10571 (Bankr. D. Del. May 16, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The debtor’s insurer sought to lift the automatic stay in order to setoff $2.2 million in return premiums against potential defense costs that the insurer expected to incur related to certain insurance claims made against the debtor. The court denied the motion, finding that the insurer had not established a right to setoff under either state law or the Bankruptcy Code.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re Creekside Senior Apartments, LP, 2012 Fed App. 0008P (6th Cir. B.A.P. June 29, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In a case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit BAP held that, for purposes of valuing collateral under section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the availability of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits must be considered in valuing a creditor’s secured claim.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND