Adding to the split of authority that has developed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (Aug. 21, 2013), the 7th Circuit aligned with the 6th Circuit’s decision in Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2012), to hold that a party may not consent or waive objection to the limited Constitutional authority of an Article I bankruptcy court.

On August 21, 2013, in Wellness International Network v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (7th Cir. August 21, 2013), the Seventh Circuit issued its latest opinion on the thorny issues emanating from the Supreme Court’s “narrow” decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.

Is anyone ready for a test on bankruptcy appellate jurisdiction?  For the second time in a week, the Sixth Circuit addressed its appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy appeals, this time in the context of orders denying the substantive consolidation of two separate chapter 7 bankruptcy estates, In re Cyberco Holdings and Teleservices Group.   On the heels of its decision in Lindsey v.

When a person “pays” a debt with a fictitious check, someone other than the bad guy usually ends up losing. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed such a situation inWhite Family Cos., Inc., v. Slone (In re Dayton Title Agency, Inc.), Case Nos. 12-3265;3359, July 31, 2013. In Dayton Title, the accused bad guy was Krishan Chari. Chari operated a real estate business in which he bought and sold commercial properties.

The Sixth Circuit addressed on Monday a circuit split concerning appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy court orders rejecting planned confirmation in In re William Lindsey.   In an opinion by Judge Sutton, the Sixth Circuit joined four other circuits which had concluded that a decision rejecting a confirmation plan does not constitute a final appealable order under Section 158(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Court noted that an unpublished decision in t

A. Background to Chapter 9 Filing

In re Miller, 2013 WL 425342 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the secured lender’s credit bid, which equaled the total debt owed on two properties but exceeded the value of the only foreclosed property involved in the sheriff’s sale, extinguished the entire debt. The court affirmed the order to lift the automatic stay only to require the lender to dismiss the second foreclosure action, release the promissory note and mortgage, and turn over the second property to the borrower free and clear.

All too often, a secured creditor’s negotiation and litigation of chapter 11 plan confirmation issues centers disproportionately on the amortization schedule of a secured claim and lacks focus on other issues that shift risk or otherwise have significant economic impact on the relative rights of the parties.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the decisions of the courts below and held in an unpublished opinion that a secured lender’s credit bid at a Michigan foreclosure sale extinguished all of the Chapter 13 debtor’s indebtedness to the lender, thereby precluding the lender from executing on a prepetition foreclosure judgment obtained against the debtor in Wisconsin. State Bank of Florence v. Miller (In re Miller), 2013 WL 425342 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2013).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently issued two opinions examining standing issues in bankruptcy proceedings. This article examines how those cases clarify bankruptcy practice and procedures in the Sixth Circuit related to: (1) obtaining standing to pursue causes of action on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, and (2) the standing of potential defendants to oppose orders granting authority to pursue causes of action against them.