In Litton Loan Servicing, LP v. Garvida, No. 04-17846 (9th Cir. BAP July 31, 2006), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit addressed two independent but related questions: (1) what procedure is necessary to object to a properly filed proof of claim, and (2) who bears the burden of proof, and the correlative risk of nonpersuasion, with regard to a disputed claim.

The United States Supreme Court has unanimously held that federal bankruptcy law does not preclude an unsecured creditor from recovering attorney’s fees authorized under a prepetition contract and incurred postpetition in bankruptcy-related litigation with the debtor.

Gary Ozenne seems to love bankruptcy court.  To wit, Mr. Ozenne filed, on his own behalf, seven bankruptcy cases over the course of five years.  Mr. Ozenne has three times petitioned the United States Supreme Court, on each occasion seeking bankruptcy-related relief.  Unfortunately for Mr.

Postpetition interest is a thorny area of bankruptcy law.  The myriad rules, coupled with the inconsistent way in which they are often applied, provide fodder for litigation and opportunity for confusion.  

We’ve previously written on various cases in which parties have sought to save or revive late filed pleadings by arguing those pleadings “relate back” to previously filed documents with varying degrees of success.

The doctrine of equitable mootness provides that Chapter 11 reorganization plans will be deemed moot, and therefore not subject to appellate review, if a plan has been substantially consummated and granting appellate relief would impair the rights of innocent third parties relying on the confirmation order.

“We’re riding down the boulevard,
We’re riding through the dark night,
With half the tank and empty heart,
Pretending we’re in love, when it’s never enough, nah.”

“Some people have a way with words, and other people…oh, uh, not have way.”

― Steve Martin

Congress enacted § 1328(f) of the Bankruptcy Code when its passed BAPCPA. This section prohibits the granting of a chapter 13 discharge if the debtor received a chapter 7 discharge within four years prior to the commencement of his chapter 13 case.

“A creditor does not become an insider simply by receiving a claim from a statutory insider,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Feb. 8, 2016. In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 2016 WL 494592, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2016) (2-1). According to the court, “Insiders are either statutory [per se] [e.g., officers, directors] or non-statutory [de facto].” Id.