In one of the first decisions issued this year by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court addressed an issue of first impression. In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, n/k/a Old Cold LLC, No. 16-9016 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), the First Circuit held that the omission of trademarks from the definition of “intellectual property” in Section 101(35A) of the Bankruptcy Code, as incorporated by Section 365(n), leaves a trademark licensee with nothing more than a claim for damages upon the rejection of its license under Section 365(a).
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 "American rule" is a well-defined legal principle applied by courts throughout the United States that holds each party to a dispute responsible for paying its own attorney fees. This principle is, however, subject to a number of exceptions that effectively allow a prevailing party to recover its own attorney fees from a losing party. For example, federal and state statutes increasingly authorize a prevailing party to recover costs from its adversary in certain types of actions.
The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the 6th Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court dismissal of five single – asset real estate Debtors’ Jointly Administered Chapter 11 cases under the “For Cause” dismissal provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1112 (b). see In re Creekside Senior Apartments, LP, et al., 2013 WL 1188061 (6th Cir. BAP Ky.)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC,1 has ruled that secured creditors do not have a right, as a matter of law, to credit bid their claims when their collateral is sold under a plan of reorganization. The Third Circuit held that secured creditors may be barred from credit bidding where a debtor's reorganization plan provides secured creditors with the "indubitable equivalent" of their secured interest in the assets. The court's ruling follows a similar ruling last year by the U.S.
In HighPoint Resources Corporation, Case No. 21-10565-CSS (Bankr. D. Del. 2021), the U.S. Trustee’s office filed an objection (Dkt. No. 48) to the rapid confirmation of the Debtors’ plan of reorganization, among other things, indicating its concern regarding the recent trend of expedited pre-packaged plans because of their failure to provide interested parties with adequate notice.
Expedited Pre-Packs
In an effort to broaden his appeal to members of the left-leaning electorate, Joe Biden endorsed Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bankruptcy plan during this past weekend. Ms. Warren’s plan, a material piece of the platform from her former presidential bid, is focused on protecting struggling individual consumers by reducing bankruptcy costs, streamlining the process, and expanding debt forgiveness. Like many of her plans, Ms. Warren’s bankruptcy plan is detailed and generally includes the following proposals:
On June 8, 2017, Clifford J. White III, director of the U.S. Trustee Program(“UST Program”)[1], proclaimed before a congressional subcommittee that “debtors with assets or income derived from marijuana may not proceed through the bankruptcy system.”
The failure of debtors to accurately list and value assets in their bankruptcy schedules is certainly not a new phenomenon. Recently, however, we are witnessing an increase in bankruptcy cases where debtors are using clever and deliberate means to omit assets or disguise the true value of their assets in an attempt to thwart recovery by creditors. While the U.S. trustee's or a creditor's remedy for such bad acts is to seek a denial of the debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C.
Mortgage lenders should be aware of the New Jersey statute of limitations on mortgage foreclosure complaints. In In re Washington, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 4649 (Bankr. D.N.J. Nov.