On January 24, 2011, the Honorable Dwight H. Williams, Jr. of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC”) request for relief from the automatic stay in the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.

In an apparent case of first impression in Massachusetts, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently held that an allonge must be physically affixed to the original promissory note to be effective.

Yes, but only if the government declines to intervene in the action. United States ex rel. Kolbeck v. Point Blank Solutions, Inc., 1:08-cv-1187 (E.D. Va.), recently addressed this issue.

Introduction

In January of this year, George L Miller, the chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") in the WL Homes bankruptcy, began filing avoidance actions against various creditors. As alleged in the complaints, the Trustee seeks the recovery of what he deems are "preferential transfers" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. This post will look briefly at the WL Homes bankruptcy, as well as provide information on common issues that arise in preference litigation.

Background on the Bankruptcy Proceeding

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey has issued a published opinion authorizing a trustee’s transfer of structured settlement payments pursuant to the New Jersey Structured Settlement Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-63, et seq. (NJ SSPA). In In Re Jackus, 2011 WL 118216 (Bankr. N.J. Jan. 14, 2011), the Bankruptcy Court held that, inter alia, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to authorize the transfer under the NJ SSPA, and the transfer was in the “best interest” of the bankruptcy estate and its creditors.

On February 8, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that will have a major impact on Chapter 11 plan confirmation. In consolidated appeals stemming from theIn re DBSD North America, Inc. bankruptcy case, the Second Circuit held that (1) the “gifting” aspect of the debtors’ plan of reorganization violated the absolute priority rule, and (2) the bankruptcy court did not err in designating a secured creditor’s vote as lacking “good faith” and disregarding that vote for purposes of confirmation.

The DBSD Plan

Tribal economies are not immune to the recent global financial crisis and economic downturn. The Indian gaming industry was hit especially hard. After consistent year-over-year growth in tribal gaming revenues during the 1990s and continuing through 2008, industry revenues declined in 2009 and have continued to stagnate. Amid reports of several tribal casino defaults—and many more tribes with significant debt maturing in the near future that will need to be restructured—tribes and creditors must consider two questions: Are tribes and their corporations eligible for bankruptcy?

The Federal Bankruptcy Act prohibits public and private employers from engaging in various discriminatory acts against individuals because they have filed for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 525. Inexplicably, the statutes applicable to public and private employers are not identical. The law applicable to a public employer, for example, specifically provides that it "may not . . . deny employment to" one who has filed for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 525(a). This "deny employment to" language does not appear in the statute for private employers. 11 U.S.C. § 525(b).

A new bill introduced in California would prohibit debt settlement providers from charging any fees in excess of 15% of the amount of consumers’ savings as a result of any settlement.

The Debt Settlement Consumer Act (Senate Bill 708) was introduced in February 2011 by State Senator Ellen Corbett (R-San Mateo), who headed the California Senate Judiciary Committee that stopped a proposed regulation (Assembly Bill 350) last year that had drawn support from the debt settlement industry. The bill is supported by the Center For Responsible Lending and the Consumers Union.

The short answer to the title question is “no.” However, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank” or the “Act”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has limited “back-up” authority to place into liquidation an insurance company that (i) meets certain criteria as respects the nature of its business and (ii) is essentially “too big to fail.” This liquidation proceeding would, however, still be under the relevant state insurance liquidation laws.1