(6th Cir. B.A.P. Sep. 30, 2016)

(6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the pensioners’ challenge to the confirmation order entered in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy case filed by the City of Detroit, Michigan. The pensioners filed the action to challenge the plan’s reduction of their benefits. The Court holds that the doctrine of equitable mootness applies. The pensioners did not obtain a stay, the plan has been substantially consummated, and many actions have been undertaken or completed under the plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Batchelder

(W.D. Ky. Aug. 15, 2016)

On July 26, 2016, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Bankruptcy Code section 546(e) "safe harbor" applicable to constructive fraudulent transfers that are settlement payments made in connection with securities contracts does not protect "transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions (or the other entities named in section 546(e)), where the entity is neither the debtor nor the transferee but only the conduit."FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 2016 BL 243677.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit recently held that a condominium unit owners association did not violate a debtor’s Chapter 7 discharge order by scheduling a sheriff’s sale to complete a prepetition foreclosure.

Rejecting the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the in rem foreclosure sale was scheduled to induce payment of discharged pre-petition condominium fees, the Sixth Circuit BAP noted that “all foreclosure litigation potentially can induce payments of discharged debt to avoid a foreclosure sale.”

Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code prohibits a bankruptcy trustee from avoiding “settlement payment[s]”, or payments “made in connection with a securities contract,” that are “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” qualifying financial entities, including financial institutions, stockbrokers, commodities brokers and others.

In this exciting age of startups, the market is brimming with opportunities for individuals and entities alike to invest in emerging companies. Today’s rapid rate of technology development justifies investors’ eagerness to take an interest in innovative companies, hoping to find the next “unicorn.” Notwithstanding the fast pace of the tech industry, it remains important for investors to conduct due diligence before kicking funds into any business, especially when bargaining for a security interest or license.

For those interested in a quick read with some juicy facts and egregious acts by the relevant practitioners, check out the recent opinion in Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame (In re Blasingame), where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an order denying approval of a proposed settlement agreement was not a final order susceptible to appeal as of right.

(6th Cir. June 15, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the decision finding sanctions were appropriate against the attorney because he unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings with repeated filings. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in entering the sanctions order. Opinion below.

Judge: White

Appellant: Dennis Allan Grossman

Attorney for Appellee: Louise M. Mazur, Marc Bryan Merklin, Brouse McDowell, Caroline Louisa Marks

(6th Cir. June 6, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P. and dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Following the principal creditor’s objection, the bankruptcy court denied the trustee and debtors’ motion to approve a settlement of a legal malpractice claim held by the estate. The debtors appealed. The court finds that the appealed order was not a final order that could be appealed because the debtors were free to propose a new settlement for approval. Opinion below.

Judge: Kethledge