We’ve previously written on various cases in which parties have sought to save or revive late filed pleadings by arguing those pleadings “relate back” to previously filed documents with varying degrees of success.

The Right of Replevin and What May Be Taken

Tracing its roots back to the common law, replevin is not a novel concept. While the cause of action is simple—allowing for the recovery of personal property that is wrongfully detained—replevin can be confusing for some creditors. This article is a brief glance at the nuances of chapter 78, Florida Statutes, to demonstrate how replevin can be a valuable tool to creditors.

In In re Zair, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49032 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York became the latest to take sides on the emerging issue of “forced vesting” through a chapter 13 plan. After analyzing Bankruptcy Code §§ 1322(b)(9) and 1325(a)(5), the court concluded that a chapter 13 debtor could not, through a chapter 13 plan, force a mortgagee to take title to the mortgage collateral.

Background

The IRS issued a Memorandum on April 15, 2016 clarifying the treatment of nonrecourse debt subject to certain “bad boy” guarantees. The Memorandum takes a position contrary to the recent Chief Counsel Advice (CCA 201606027) and is more in keeping with the general view of the real estate industry.

– But they weren’t as oppressive as my subject line may imply.

In a 13 page decision, released April 22, 2016, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding and sanctioned the Plaintiff – disallowing any further litigation against the defendants in the Bankruptcy Court. Judge Gross’ opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2016)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to state a claim. The complaint was based on a factual assertion that the plaintiff’s predecessor had an interest in certain bank account funds. However, the prior 11 U.S.C. § 363 sale order and confirmation order adjudicated otherwise. Thus, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Philip G. Fairbanks, M. Austin Mehr, John M. Simms

(7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit applies Wisconsin state law and holds that a mortgage can attach a lien to a vendor’s interest in a real estate contract and that the lender perfected the lien by recording in the county land records rather than filing a UCC-1 financing statement. The trustee is unable to avoid the lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Trustee: Michael F. Dubis, Christopher R. Schultz

Attorneys for Appellees: Ruffi Law Offices, Sara Lynn Ruffi, Lund Law Office, Brad M. Lund

IRS Clarifies That a Typical “Bad Boy Guarantee” Will Not Cause an Otherwise Nonrecourse Financing to Be Treated as Recourse

On April 15, 2016, the IRS released a generic legal advice memorandum (the “GLAM”)¹ providing an important and helpful clarification of the treatment of a guarantee of a partnership nonrecourse liability when the guarantee is conditioned on certain typical “nonrecourse carve-out” events (commonly referred to as “bad boy guarantees”).

Postpetition interest is a thorny area of bankruptcy law.  The myriad rules, coupled with the inconsistent way in which they are often applied, provide fodder for litigation and opportunity for confusion.  

Shareholders who received nearly $8 billion from the Tribune Company leveraged buyout (LBO) do not have to give back that money as a constructive fraudulent transfer. Although the possibility remains that the creditors can recover this money through the pending intentional fraudulent transfer claims, which are much more difficult to prove, the Second Circuit recently held that the Bankruptcy Code preempts creditors from recovering under state constructive fraud theories when shareholders receive distributions under securities contracts effectuated through financial institutions.