In Hafen v. Adams (In re Hafen), 616 B.R. 570 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2020), a bankruptcy appellate panel from the Tenth Circuit ("BAP") held that the bankruptcy court is the only court with subject-matter jurisdiction to decide whether a claim or cause of action is property of a debtors' bankruptcy estate. As a consequence, the BAP held that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by permitting a state court to determine whether creditors had "standing" to sue third-party recipients of allegedly fraudulent transfers.
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to obtain credit or financing during the course of a bankruptcy case is often crucial to the debtor's prospects for either maintaining operations pending the development of a confirmable plan of reorganization or facilitating an orderly liquidation designed to maximize asset values for the benefit of all stakeholders. In a chapter 11 case, financing (and/or cash infusions through recapitalization) also is often a key component of the reorganized debtor's ability to operate post-bankruptcy.
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee to avoid certain transfers of a debtor's property and to recover the property or its value from the transferees is an essential tool in maximizing the value of a bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, a ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit could, if followed by other courts, curtail a trustee's avoidance and recovery powers. In Rajala v. Spencer Fane LLP (In re Generation Resources Holding Co.), 964 F.3d 958 (10th Cir. 2020), reh'g denied, No.
In an important affirmation of the rights and duties of a creditors’ committee, Bankruptcy Judge David T. Thuma of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico has confirmed that a bankruptcy court may confer derivative standing on a committee to assert estate claims if a debtor in possession declines to assert them.[1]
In an important affirmation of the rights and duties of a creditors’ committee, Bankruptcy Judge David T. Thuma of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico has confirmed that a bankruptcy court may confer derivative standing on a committee to assert estate claims if a debtor in possession declines to assert them.[1]
In what appears to be more good news for those with student loan debt, the Tenth Circuit recently joined the Fifth Circuit by holding that certain private student loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy.
In McDaniel v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 18-1445 (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2020), the Tenth Circuit held that an educational loan does not constitute “an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit” under Section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 523(a)(8) of the Code provides, in pertinent part:
In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Factual Background
Millions of Americans are grappling with student debt on top of the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic and the economic recession. Unlike other categories of personal debt, most student loans are nondischargeable absent a showing that the debtor is experiencing an “undue hardship.” Of the over $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, over $50 billion is comprised of private loans. On August 31, 2020, in McDaniel v.
On August 31, 2020, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado’s holding that certain student loans not guaranteed by a governmental unit may be discharged in bankruptcy.
On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. FDIC,1 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the application of the so-called “Bob Richards” rule, a judicial doctrine that was developed in the context of a bankruptcy case almost 60 years ago concerning ownership of tax refunds secured by the parent corporate entity on behalf of a bankrupt subsidiary included in a consolidated group tax return.