In re SR Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 506 B.R. 121 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2014) –
A group of lenders moved to dismiss the debtor’s bankruptcy case on the basis that it was filed in bad faith, or in the alternative asked the court to find that the debtor was a “single asset real estate” and then to grant the lenders relief from the automatic stay.
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Brumfiel (In re Brumfiel), 514 B.R. 637 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2014) –
After a debtor reopened her chapter 7 bankruptcy case, a lender moved for relief from the automatic stay in order to continue with a foreclosure action. The debtor objected, arguing among other things that the lender did not have standing to request relief.
n re New Bride Missionary Baptist Church, 509 B.R. 85 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014) –
After the bankruptcy court denied confirmation of a debtor’s proposed chapter 11 plan of reorganization because there was no accepting impaired class, the debtor proposed an amended plan that placed a mortgagee’s large deficiency claim in one class and claims of other unsecured creditors in a separate “administrative convenience” class.
First Am. Bank v. First Am. Transp. Title Ins. Co., 759 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2014) –
After a mortgagor filed bankruptcy, a lender brought claims under a ship mortgage insurance title policy. The lender appealed the district court’s determination of the amount due under the policy, contending that the court used the wrong date of valuation, miscalculated the value of one of the insured vessels, and improperly made certain deductions.
In re Arenas, 514 B.R. 887 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2014) –
The U.S. trustee sought to dismiss “for cause” a chapter 7 case filed by a marijuana grower and his wife. The debtors countered by moving to convert to a chapter 13 case. The case turned on the impact of the federal Controlled Substances Act.
In re Trinity Coal Corp., 514 B.R. 526 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2014) –
The debtors sought to reject easement and disposal agreements with the owners of adjacent coal mines. The adjacent owners objected on the basis that the agreements were an integral part of a larger transaction, and could not be separately rejected.
In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 513 B.R. 624 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014)
A purchaser of residential mortgage-backed securities filed proofs of claim based on alleged misrepresentations by the debtors in offering materials distributed in connection with sale of the securities. The debtors objected and sought to subordinate the claims as claims arising from securities “of” the debtors.