In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. See, e.g., JPMCC 2006-LDP7 Miami Beach Lodging, LLC v.
Before a bankruptcy court may confirm a chapter 11 plan, it must determine if any of the persons voting to accept the plan are “insiders,”i.e., individuals or entities with a close relationship to the debtor. Because the Bankruptcy Code’s drafters believed that insider transactions warrant heightened scrutiny the classification of a creditor as an “insider” can have a profound impact on a debtor’s ability to reorganize.
Circuit held that when a chapter 11 debtor cures a default under its loan agreements, the debtor is required to pay default interest as required by the loan documents, rather than at the non-default rate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that if a creditor wishes to participate in the distribution of a debtor’s assets under Chapter 13, it must timely file a proof of claim, and the debtor’s acknowledgment of the debt owed to the creditor does not relieve the creditor of this affirmative duty.
A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in Pacifica L 51, LLC v. New Investments, Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.) (16 C.D.O.S. 11723, Nov. 4, 2016), which held that a secured creditor can collect default interest in connection with a cure under a chapter 11 plan, thereby rendering void the long-established rule under Great W. Bank & Tr. v.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a case of first impression and the first published circuit court opinion to address the issue, recently held that each and every debt collector — not just the first one to communicate with a debtor — must send the debt validation notice required by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
“[T]he claims of [an individual debtor’s] general unsecured creditors are ‘senior to or equal [to]’” a defrauded investor’s security claim under Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 510(b), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 22, 2016. In re Del Biaggio, 2016 WL 4435904, *9 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016). The investor (“F”) had filed a claim against the debtor based on his wrongful failure to fund, through his affiliated limited liability company (“LLC”), his share in an acquisition venture with F.
On August 29, 2016, the Third Circuit released a precedential opinion (the “Opinion”) which opined on whether filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition could qualify as tortious interference under state law. The Third Circuit’s Opinion is available here. This Opinion was issued in Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XVII, LLC, Case No. 15-2622. The District Court had ruled that the tortious interference claim was preempted by § 303(i) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Key Points
An Eleventh Circuit panel recently vacated two district court orders after sending the parties to mediation, and after the parties’ conditioned settlement on vacatur of the orders. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, after being ordered to mediation a second time by the appellate panel, the parties reached a settlement contingent on the district court’s vacating its orders on summary judgment and attorney’s fees.