Given the current state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that business related bankruptcy filings increased 41.6 percent and non-business bankruptcies increased 28.4 percent between June 30, 2007, and June 30, 2008, with more than one million Americans filing for bankruptcy during calendar year 2007, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
The Bankruptcy Protector
How A Subchapter V Case Filed by Controversial Alex Jones Could Shape the Scope of Subchapter V Cases
The Bankruptcy Protector
The Bankruptcy Protector
Debtors in bankruptcy, including hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, left out under the CARES Act PPP
Back in December of 2017, the Bankruptcy Protector provided a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevic through November 17, 2017. In this update, we discuss the cases decided between November 17, 2017 and May 10, 2019.
The chart below includes the case name, date, and citation; a brief description of the nature of the case; and a brief description of how the Court applied the Jevic.
In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Old Cold LLC (In re Old Cold LLC), 879 F.3d 376 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit held that a sale in possible violation of the Supreme Court’s Jevic decision does not allow an appellate court to examine the merits of the sale when the sale-approval order otherwise is statutorily moot under section 363(m).
The Bankruptcy Protector
Envision a scenario in which you purchased a right of first refusal for a parcel of real estate. That right, as bargained for, would let you purchase the parcel if it was put up for sale by matching any competing bidder’s offer. As a diligent prospective purchaser, you would naturally record that right of first refusal in the appropriate land records. So far so good.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1 was implemented to protect debtors from unanticipated deficiencies in residential mortgage payments following a chapter 13 discharge, and the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s recent opinion in In re Feliciano Figueroa[1] illustrates how detrimental the rule can be to inattentive mortgage holders.