(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 29, 2016)
A chapter 7 trustee successfully sought to avoid a mortgage using his “strong arm” powers on the basis that the mortgage was not properly acknowledged. Once again a mortgagee paid dearly for sloppy execution of a document.
On Friday, the Ohio Division of Financial Institutions closed Bramble Savings Bank, headquartered in Milford, Ohio, and appointed the FDIC as receiver for the bank. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Foundation Bank, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, to assume all of the deposits of Bramble Savings Bank.
On Friday, AmTrust Bank, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, was closed by the OTS and the FDIC was named as receiver. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with New York Community Bank, headquartered in Westbury, New York, to assume the deposits of AmTrust Bank. AmTrust did not pay a premium to assume the deposits.
On January 25, 2019, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) issued an order clarifying its position with regard to bankruptcy filings that seek to reject Commission-jurisdictional wholesale power purchase agreements. In response to a petition for a declaratory order and complaint filed by NextEra Energy, Inc. and NextEra Energy Partners, L.P.
In recent years, it has become common practice in large chapter 11 cases for debtors to include language in their proposed chapter 11 plan which purports to release certain nondebtors from the claims of third parties. Although some third parties may consent to the release—such as by voting in favor of the plan or otherwise electing to do so during the plan solicitation process—circumstances frequently arise in which the debtors seek approval from the bankruptcy court to release nondebtors from third parties’ claims without the consent of the third parties.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (“the Court”) held in In re John Joseph Louis Johnson, III, Case No. 14-57104, 2016 WL 1719149, that a creditor violated the automatic stay by seeking to enforce an arbitration award against nondebtor co-defendants. The automatic stay applies not only to stay actions against the debtor personally but also prohibits “any act to … exercise control over property of the [debtor’s bankruptcy] estate.” 11 U.S.C.
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.