Sarah Banda U.S. Bankruptcy Court (N.D. Ga.); Atlanta On May 15th, JCPenney announced that the company was filing for chapter 11 relief. Another in a trend of major retailers filing for bankruptcy. JCPenney's announcement was expected, as forced closures in the pandemic exacerbated the company's pre-COVID financial problems.1 However, what raised some eyebrows is the company's plan to spin its properties into a real estate investment trust (REIT) as a part of its proposal to emerge from bankruptcy.
An increasing number of businesses — even those that have traditionally been financially and operationally sound — are now experiencing unanticipated revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Companies may find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being out of compliance with financial covenants with lenders, unable to meet financial obligations to vendors, in default of contractual obligations, or in need of financial or restructuring/bankruptcy assistance.
In Witt v. United Cos. Lending Corp. (“In re Witt”), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 13 debtors are not permitted to bifurcate undersecured home mortgage loans into separate secured and unsecured claims. In re Witt, 113 F.3d at 509. Recently, the Court overruled this twenty-two-year-old decision in an en banc opinion, Hurlburt v. Black, No. 17-2449, 2019 WL 2237966 (4th Cir. 2019).
The West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (“WVCCPA”) is a remedial statute designed to protect West Virginia consumers from improper debt collection. Only “consumers” have standing to file a lawsuit under the WVCCPA. The term “consumer” is defined as a natural person that owes a debt or allegedly owes a debt. But does a person still owe debt if that debt was discharged by a bankruptcy court? Although there is some conflicting case law in West Virginia, an answer is forming.
On September 18, in an en banc review, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overruled, in part, seminal casesBarger v. City of Cartersville, 348 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) and Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002), adopting a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis when facing questions of judicial estoppel.
In re Baber, 523 B.R. 156 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2014) –
The debtors objected to a proof of claim filed on behalf of a mortgagee based on issues arising from assignment of the mortgage note by the lender that originated the loan. The mortgagee responded by, among other things, challenging the standing of the debtors to raise these issues.
In re Killmer, 513 B.R. 41 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –
After reopening a bankruptcy case, a mortgagee moved for a determination that a post-petition delinquent property tax sale was void because it was held in violation of the automatic stay. In response, the tax authority requested retroactive annulment of the stay.
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.
Albert v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC (In re El Erian), 512 B.R. 391 (Bankr. D. D.C. 2014) –
A chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid the lien of a recorded deed of trust because (1) it contained both correct and incorrect parcel numbers and (2) it was improperly indexed. The issue turned on whether a bona fide purchaser would have had inquiry or constructive notice of the deed of trust.