An “Order Staying the Later-Filed Bankruptcy Cases” is from In re The Aliera Companies Inc., Case No. 21-11548, Delaware Bankruptcy Court (issued January 18, 2022, Doc. 56), followed by an “Order Transferring Venue of the Later-Filed Voluntary Bankruptcy Cases” (issued January 25, 2022, Doc. 67) in the same case.

Can the foreclosure of a property tax lien on real estate be avoided as a fraudulent transfer under § 584 of the Bankruptcy Code?

That’s the issue before the District Court, on a bankruptcy appeal, in Duvall v. County of Ontario, New York, Case No. 21-cv-06236 in U.S. District Court, WDNY (issued 11/9/2021).

Courts have gone both ways on the issue.

The Difficulty

Every now and then, (i) something is blatantly obvious, but (ii) those in charge insist that what seems obvious is actually false. Such a disconnect breeds distrust.

That’s precisely what exists in our bankruptcy system. The U.S. Constitution requires that bankruptcy laws be “uniform . . . throughout the United States”:

The opinion is from In re The Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y., Case No. 20-10322, Western New York Bankruptcy Court (entered December 27, 2021, Doc. 1487).

The Diocese of Buffalo asks the Bankruptcy Court to refer its Chapter 11 case and related adversary proceedings to mandatory global mediation–it does so twice. Its first request is denied. It’s second is granted . . . but with limitations.

“We can’t see what the Subchapter V trustees are doing, so we don’t have an opinion on their effectiveness.”

–This is the response of a couple bankruptcy judges, when asked about the effectiveness of Subchapter V trustees in performing the statutory “facilitate a consensual plan” duty.

Startled!

Startled! That’s my initial reaction, upon hearing the judges’ response.

But the response actually makes sense:

On January 3, 2022, Reuters reports, under the heading “Judge orders mediation for Purdue, Sacklers over opioid settlement,” as follows:

EIGHTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY MONITOR

Last year (October 23, 2009) we posted on the topic of UCC search logic in light of the bankruptcy case of In re EDM Corporation 2009 Westlaw 367773 (Bankr.D.Neb.).

Following a $9 million judgment in its favor, Granite Re was further awarded pre- and post-judgment interest on that judgment. Granite Re filed a proof of claim in Acceptance Insurance’s bankruptcy action for the amount of $10.9 million, the balance of the premium due under a reinsurance contract plus interest. Acceptance disputed the claim, arguing it no longer needed reinsurance, and filed a separate adversary proceeding against Granite Re alleging unjust enrichment. The Eighth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of Acceptance.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy.  The court stated that under these circumstances “the issue of whether the policies are property of the bankruptcy estate is irrelevant.”  In re TierOne Corp., 2012 WL 4513554 (Bankr. D. Neb. Oct. 2, 2012).