One consequence of the depressed real estate market has been numerous Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases wherein the debtor seeks confirmation of a “dirt-for-debt” plan. In such a plan, instead of paying the secured creditor the value of the real property securing the debt through restructured loan terms, the debtor proposes to convey part or all of the real property securing the debt to the creditor in full satisfaction of its secured claim.

In difficult economic times, debtors’ attorneys closely review credit reports looking for potential legal claims against creditors. Long after a debtor has been discharged from bankruptcy, creditors can find themselves defending claims of improper credit reporting. A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina illustrates the trouble facing creditors who furnish incorrect reports of discharged debt. See In re Adams (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2010).

When a loan is secured by real property, the current value of the property will be a determining factor in how the lender is treated in bankruptcy and will drive the lender’s bidding strategy in foreclosure. Valuing real property has never been an exact science. Volatility in the residential and commercial real estate markets over the last two years has made it even harder for lenders to rely with confidence on the appraisals they obtain to plan and predict how they will fare in bankruptcy or in foreclosure.

In a recent decision welcomed by creditors, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina reversed a bankruptcy court order confirming a Chapter 11 debtor’s plan because the debtor engaged in “obvious gerrymandering” in order to secure the votes necessary to obtain confirmation of the plan.  

I. Facts

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of In re Construction Supervision Services that the property interest underlying a subcontractor’s lien on funds arises from the date it first furnishes labor or materials to a construction project.  The timing of when an interest in property arises is critical as it could allow, as it did here, a subcontractor to prime a lender’s perfected lien on accounts receivable when notice was not served until after the debtor filed bankruptcy.  This alert briefly describes the decision’s impact on the constru

Does a lender have a duty to act in good faith when negotiating with a  borrower during a commercial loan modification?  In an order issued recently by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, in In re: Burcam Capital II, LLC, the court denied a lender’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claims against the lender.  The Borrower alleged that the lender’s failure to modify the terms of the loan constituted a breach of the lender’s obligation to deal with the borrower in good faith, as well as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.&nbs

In its recent decision in Valley Bank and Trust Company v. Spectrum Scan, LLC (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit overturned lower court decisions that were casting serious doubt on a lender’s ability to realize value from its security interest in the proceeds of FCC broadcast licenses.  This alert will briefly describe the law governing security interests in FCC broadcast licenses, as well as the issues created by the lower courts – and ultimately resolved by the appeals court - in the Tracy case.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of In Re: McCormick that a recorded North Carolina deed of trust indexed in a county’s grantor/grantee index may nevertheless be avoided by a trustee in bankruptcy if such county has elected a Parcel Identification Number (“PIN”) indexing system and the recorded deed of trust does not appear in such PIN index.  This alert briefly describes the PIN system in North Carolina and the McCormick decision’s impact on the need for PINs in deeds of trust recorded in North Carolina counties that have adopted the PIN

Borrowers who file a bankruptcy petition are always looking for creative new challenges to claims asserted by their bank creditors.  In recent years, debtors have argued that a bank’s issuance of an Internal Revenue Code form 1099-C “Cancellation of Debt” has the effect of waiving the bank’s claims against the borrower, and should preclude the bank from having an allowed claim in the bankruptcy case.  Fortunately, some recent court opinions state that a bank’s issuance of a 1099-C does not constitute a waiver, and the bank remains entitled to enforce its claim in a subsequent bank

By order issued on February 23, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina vacated the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Mammoth Grading, Inc.  This decision and the companion decision in In re Harrelson Utilities, Inc. held that the lien rights of construction subcontractors and suppliers cannot be perfected once a bankruptcy petition is filed by a party higher in the contract chain.