Updates

Physical Supplier Denied Maritime Lien

A federal court in the United States recently held that a physical supplier of bunkers was not entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel.  Valero Marketing and Supply Co. v. M/V ALMI SUN, No. 14 Civ. 2712 (NJB) (E.D. La. decided Dec. 28, 2015 and Feb. 8, 2016).  The Order was the first to apply United States law and directly address the issue in the context of O.W. Bunker's bankruptcies.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 3, 2016)

(7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)

For years, it was generally accepted that mortgage creditors and bankruptcy trustees could assert the status of a bona fide purchaser and treat a defectively notarized mortgage as if that mortgage did not exist.  On February 16, 2016, our Supreme Court provided clarity regarding the legal effects of R.C. §1301.401 and provided protection to lenders regardless of whether their mortgages were defective.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed an order of the bankruptcy court granting a debtor’s motion to avoid a judgment creditor’s lien on the debtor’s residence held in tenancy by the entirety with his non-debtor spouse, holding because the lien “fixed” under the Bankruptcy Code and thus impaired the debtor’s claimed exemption, it was avoidable.

A copy of the opinion is available at:  Link to Opinion.

In re China Medical Technologies, Inc., 539 B.R. 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (No. 12-BR-13736)において、倒産手続 における会社の清算人は、同社の監査委員会に向けて外部弁護士が実施した倒産前の内部調査に関連 する資料にアクセスすることを求めた。破産裁判所は、外部弁護士に対し、秘匿特権で保護されない 資料の提出を命じたが、弁護士と依頼人の間の秘匿特権や職務活動の法理（ワークプロダクトの法 理）で保護される資料については提出を命じなかった。清算人は、提出が命じられなかったこれらの 資料につき、控訴した。当事者は、本件で先例となる秘匿特権についての判例はCFTC v.

On March 1, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument on the seemingly simple question of what “actual fraud” means.  The Court’s decision will have a significant impact on the reach of the exception to discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Seventh Circuit (which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) appears to have added a new and potentially conflicting standard in analyzing  a third-party transferee’s “good faith” defense to a fraudulent transfer claim.  The good faith defense protects a third-party transferee from having to return the value it received from a debtor as a part of a fraudulent transaction so long as that third-party transferee entered into the transaction with the debtor in good faith. 

“Sometimes, you can make no mistakes, do everything right, and still lose.”

Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG)