Deutsche Bank held an under-secured home mortgage from a Chapter 13 debtor. The debtor was in arrears, but wanted to retain possession and control of her home. Thus, in her Chapter 13 plan, the debtor proposed to cure the arrearage, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1322(e). The problem, however, was that the parties could not agree on the arrearage amount.
Commercial lessors have long enjoyed certain individualized protections under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Third Circuit’s recent decision in In re Goody’s Family Clothing, Inc., __ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 2671929 (3d Cir. June 29, 2010), makes it clear that commercial lessors also can take advantage of the more general protections available to creditors to obtain payment for goods and services they provide to a debtor after it files for bankruptcy where the specific protections are not applicable.
Section 365(d)(3)
In the W.R. Grace bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed its prior rulings on the controversial issue of a bankruptcy court’s power to enjoin actions by third parties against non-debtors.1 Resting on prior precedent, the Third Circuit held that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin third party actions that have no direct effect upon the bankruptcy estate.
Industry observers have been waiting to see when bank failures arising out of the recent financial crisis would produce a wave of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) litigation similar to that seen in the early 1990s after the savings and loan crisis. With its second suit in recent months, the FDIC has shown that it will aggressively pursue claims against directors and officers in connection with failed depository institutions.
Generally speaking, Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state – meaning that lenders can foreclose on mortgages of Massachusetts property without seeking judicial approval beforehand. In certain circumstances, however, a pre-foreclosure judicial proceeding is required solely to determine whether the borrower is in the active military service and entitled to the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. §532.
In November of 2010, the trustee for the Circuit City Stores, Inc., liquidating trust filed more than 500 adversary proceedings against creditors seeking the recovery of alleged preferential payments. The extent of the trustee's success in recovering these payments will impact the overall distribution to creditors. Creditors in bankruptcy cases should be aware that preference litigation allows a trustee or debtor-in-possession to recover payments received by a creditor during the period immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky recently held that under Kentucky law, a security interest in a motor vehicle is not deemed perfected unless and until physical notation of the security interest is made on the certificate of title, pursuant to KRS 186A.190.
Earlier this month, in Rea v. Federated Investors, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25501 (Dec. 15, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that while federal law prohibits a private employer from firing or discriminating against an employee who files or has filed for bankruptcy, it does not prohibit a private employer from denying employment to someone simply because he had filed for bankruptcy in the past. Thus, 11 U.S.C. § 525(b) does not create a cause of action against private employers who engage in discriminatory hiring.
- Introduction
Congress enacted the current Bankruptcy Code, Sections 101 through 1502 of Title Eleven of the United States Code (as amended, the “Bankruptcy Code”), in 1978, and it took effect late in 1979. Many important federal environmental statutes were enacted around the same time, e.g., Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. Thus, Congress did not fully consider environmental liability schemes when it created the bankruptcy code.
Rea v. Federated Investors, 2010 WL 5094250 (3d Cir., December 15, 2010) – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a provision in the Bankruptcy Code which prohibits private employers from “terminat[ing] the employment of, or discriminat[ing] with respect to employment” against an individual who had previously declared bankruptcy, doesnot create a cause of action against a private employer who declines to hire based upon an applicant’s previously declared bankruptcy. Analyzing the bankruptcy provision at issue, 11 U.S.C.