Bankruptcy Judges cannot impose additional local chapter 13 confirmation requirements beyond those created by Congress, according to the Southern District of Illinois (the “District Court”).

Back in July of 2015, Curtis James Jackson, III, more commonly known as 50 Cent, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, a little over two months after he was ranked fourth in the list of wealthiest hip-hop artists by Forbes. Jackson’s filing came on the heels of a New York state court ruling against him for $5 million in favor of Lastonia Leviston (plus $2 million in punitive damages that were later awarded post-petition) for impermissibly posting a sex tape online.

The Bankruptcy Protector

Envision a scenario in which you purchased a right of first refusal for a parcel of real estate. That right, as bargained for, would let you purchase the parcel if it was put up for sale by matching any competing bidder’s offer. As a diligent prospective purchaser, you would naturally record that right of first refusal in the appropriate land records. So far so good.

Section 105 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, titled “Power of Court,” is often cited and used as a “catch-all” provision when requesting certain relief or when a bankruptcy court enters an order granting (or denying) certain relief not prescribed by a particular provision of the Bankruptcy Code. That section provides that a “court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title . . .

The Bankruptcy Protector

In 2017, Congress enacted an amendment imposing a sharp increase in quarterly fees owed to the United States Trustee program by many chapter 11 debtors. Expectedly, the constitutionality of that decision has been challenged on several grounds, and there is considerable disagreement among the circuits.

In In re Woodbridge Grp. of Companies, LLC, No. BR 17-12560-BLS, 2019 WL 4305444 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed an opinion by Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey, and held that a proof of claim will be expunged if the note and loan agreement underlying the claim prohibit assignment and provide that assignment without consent will be “null and void.”

Facts

The recent Supreme Court decision in Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. eliminated any circuit split or confusion over the language of the section 546(e) safe harbor.

In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Harling, 852 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2017), as amended (Apr. 6, 2017), the Fourth Circuit addressed whether claim objections filed after a Chapter 13 plan had been confirmed are barred by the res judicata effect of the confirmed plan. Here, LVNV Funding filed unsecured proofs of claim that it conceded were barred by the statute of limitations.

The Bankruptcy Protector

Imagine this: you sell a product to a company on credit at 8% interest until you are paid, and the company files for bankruptcy before repayment. Or maybe you are a hard money lender that made an unsecured loan at 18% to a company to bridge through hard times, and the company files for bankruptcy. Or maybe you are a secured creditor with a 5% loan on real estate, and after the borrower files for bankruptcy, you discover there is a defect in your mortgage and your lien can be stripped.

The Bankruptcy Protector