In Burkhart v. Coleman, (In re Tippett) --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 4070690 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that an unauthorized post-petition sale of real property may be upheld where: 1) the bankruptcy trustee failed to record the bankruptcy petition with the county recorder; and 2) a bona fide purchaser thereafter bought and recorded title in the property.
USCA Ninth Circuit, September 23, 2008
In the biggest bank receivership in the history of the United States, the Office of Thrift Supervision seized Washington Mutual Bank on September 25 and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. While details are still emerging, it is at least clear that all deposits were transferred to JPMorgan, as were all loans and Qualified Financial Contracts, which include swaps, options, futures, forwards, repurchase agreements and any other Qualified Financial Contract as defined in 12 U.S.C. Section 1821(e)(8)(D).
On Friday, November 14, 2008, the Executive Office for United States Trustees ("EOUST") issued for public comment a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth procedures and criteria U.S. Trustees will use when considering applicants seeking to become approved providers of a personal financial management instructional course (the "Proposed Rule"). Comments are due by January 13, 2009.
Summary of Key Aspects of the Proposed Rule
As our economy slides into what could be a long and severe recession, retail bankruptcies are expected to increase. Landlords are presented with a myriad of problems when one of their tenants files for bankruptcy. Although many of the obligations and rights of landlords are well established by current bankruptcy law, a novel question arises when a tenant files for bankruptcy while a landlord is in the process of constructing tenant improvements or is on the verge of providing a tenant allowance. Given the tenant’s right to reject its lease, a landlord is faced with a difficult decision.
In Henderson v. Powermate Holding Corp. (In re Powermate Holding Corp.)1, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware became the second bankruptcy court to address the status of WARN Act claims after the 2005 amendments to section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a nondischargeable debt for malicious and willful injury must include proof of tortious conduct. An intentional breach of contract does not suffice.
On Feb. 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Hutson v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (In re National Gas Distributors), attempting, in a matter of first impression, to define "commodity forward agreement" for purposes of eligibility for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. At first blush, this decision appears to provide the additional certainty that participants in the commodities markets require.
Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C § 101 et seq., which incorporates most of the provisions of the United Nations’ Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency,[1] was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Chapter 15 replaced former 11 U.S.C. § 304, which was been enacted in 1978 to provide specific procedures by which a representative in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding could obtain relief in U.S. courts to facilitate the foreign bankruptcy proceeding.
A recent opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confirms that “actual control” over a debtor is not necessary to qualify as a nonstatutory “insider” for the purpose of extending the period for preference recovery under Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. See Schubert v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. (In re Winstar Communications, Inc.), 554 F.3d 382 (3rd Cir. 2009).