Background

Following various disputes as to the scope of the collateral given to secured creditors, the debtors and certain of their noteholders jointly proposed a chapter 11. The plan included a rights offering that the consenting noteholders agreed to backstop. These consenting noteholders were granted the right to purchase significant equity of the reorganized debtors at a discount and receive significant premiums for their agreement to backstop the rights offering and support the plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that bankruptcy courts could confirm Chapter 13 plans proposing estimated time periods to complete the plan if unsecured creditors and the trustee did not object, reversing a contrary ruling from its Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

A copy of the opinion in In re Nanette Sisk is available at: Link to Opinion.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed a lower bankruptcy court’s ruling that rejected an objection to the confirmation of debtors’ chapter 13 plan asserted by the holder of a claim relating to vehicle financing incurred within 910 days of the bankruptcy petition (a “910 claim”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a recent change to Ohio law involving notice of a defective lien had no bearing on a bankruptcy trustee’s ability to avoid the defective lien because such notice is irrelevant to a trustee’s status as a judicial lien creditor.

Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s upholding of the bankruptcy court’s denial of the mortgagee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that the “no fair ground of doubt” standard established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Taggart v. Lorenzen, a case involving alleged violation of a Chapter 7 discharge order, governed civil contempt proceedings for violation of a confirmed reorganization plan under Chapter 11.

In its top consumer credit law decisions of 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that settlement of an FDCPA claim does not trigger an attorney fee award, examined third-party contact as a “communication” under the FDCPA, and ruled there was no “partial surrender” of collateral in a Chapter 13 plan.

Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 993 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2021)

On January 27, 2020, FERC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) for rehearing en banc of that court’s decision finding bankruptcy court-FERC concurrent jurisdiction over certain power purchase agreements. Notwithstanding such concurrent jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit’s decision finds that the bankruptcy court’s concurrent jurisdiction is paramount, and that therefore, FERC-jurisdictional power purchase agreements are susceptible to rejection in bankruptcy.

On December 12, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part a bankruptcy court’s assertion of exclusive and unlimited jurisdiction over certain of FirstEnergy Solutions’ (“FES”) power purchase agreements that FERC had previously approved under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) and that FES sought to reject in bankruptcy.

On October 22, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling in Crocker v. Navient Solutions that could have mixed consequences for student loan borrowers and creditors alike. The Court determined that a bankruptcy court lacks the authority to enforce discharge injunctions issued by bankruptcy courts in other districts.

“A … transferee [who] received fraudulent transfers with actual knowledge or inquiry notice of fraud or insolvency” loses any “good faith” defense available under the Texas version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Jan. 9, 2019. Janvey v. GMAG LLC, 2019 WL 141107, *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019) (emphasis added).