In keeping with the courts’ narrow construction of what constitutes “substantial contribution” in a chapter 11 case, an Ohio bankruptcy court in In re AmFin Financial Corp., 2012 WL 652018 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2012), denied administrative- expense priority to the fees and expenses of the holders of approximately $100 million in senior notes (the “Senior Noteholders”) issued by debtor AmFin Financial Corporation (“AFC”).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently held that under Ohio law, the homestead exemption set forth in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2329.66 applies to contiguous parcels of land only if those parcels are used for a single purpose as the debtor’s homestead. In re Whitney, 459 B.R. 72 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2011).
In the course of their business, bankers routinely encounter single member limited liability companies ("SMLLCs"), entities commonly used in real estate and small businesses. Despite the prevalence of SMLLCs, there is a fundamental legal uncertainty as to whether the assets of an SMLLC share the same level of protection from its member's creditors as is provided to the assets of a multi-member LLC through the charging order remedy.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes. The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.
In a recent case, a lawyer was sanctioned by an Ohio bankruptcy judge for his conduct in connection with an adversary proceeding he brought on behalf of a client against a Chapter 7 debtor. The lawyer was vindicated, though, after the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit (the “BAP”) reversed the bankruptcy court on appeal.
Background Facts
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that a mortgage defectively executed but properly recorded still provides constructive notice of its contents.
A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.
The borrowers executed a promissory note and a mortgage. The notary acknowledgment on the mortgage was left blank. The mortgage was recorded with the notary section incomplete. The mortgage was later assigned.
For years, it was generally accepted that mortgage creditors and bankruptcy trustees could assert the status of a bona fide purchaser and treat a defectively notarized mortgage as if that mortgage did not exist. On February 16, 2016, our Supreme Court provided clarity regarding the legal effects of R.C. §1301.401 and provided protection to lenders regardless of whether their mortgages were defective.
Whether an insurer can refuse to provide coverage on the grounds that the bankrupt insured has not paid a self-insured retention (SIR) is often litigated during a bankruptcy case. Recently, in Sturgill v.