A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.
On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.
Add the Eight Circuit to a growing list of courts that have found that a plan of reorganization which proposes better treatment for creditors who have agreed to purchase any leftover securities in an offering (a “backstop agreement”) done pursuant to that plan does not violate the requirement that each claim within a class of creditors receive the same treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4). In re: Peabody Energy Corp., --- F.3d --- (Docket No. 18-1302) (8th Cir. August 9, 2019).
The Peabody Plan
InIn re Blasingame, 2018 WL 2084789 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. May 3, 2018), the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel demonstrates that trusts can be used to protect assets from the reach of creditors in the context of a bankruptcy.
In In re Short Bark Industries Inc., 17-11502 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware read the Supreme Court’s holding in Jevic narrowly in connection with a settlement of a dispute on DIP financing.
The Bankruptcy Protector
In Enter. Bank v. The Ingros Fam. LLC, et al., 2022 WL 2283392 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. June 23, 2022), a lender faced a potentially costly decision when it mistakenly left the word “The” from a borrower’s name.
The Bankruptcy Protector
In recent years it seems that a common misconception among lenders and their counsel has been taking shape. Namely, that lender liability is no longer a viable cause of action in today’s financial services and judicial landscapes. Those who subscribe to this view, however, should pay careful attention to a recent decision demonstrating that lenders still can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a borrower’s business affairs.
The Bankruptcy Protector
In the case of In re Ricky L. Moore (19-01228), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa taught an important lesson in the context of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases[1]: do not rely on repeated assurances of payment from a friendly debtor in lieu of filing your bankruptcy proof of claim.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dealt a blow to debtors seeking Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). In a decision entered on Monday, June 22, Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Jovita Carranza (In re Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation) that could have long-lasting ramifications for many debtors, both in and outside of the Fifth Circuit.
Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in BOKF NA v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB (In re MPM Silicones LLC), Case No. 15-2280, 2019 WL 121003 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2019), which had significant ramifications for senior secured creditors. Much has been written about this decision, so a lengthy discussion will not be undertaken here.