In Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In re Reyes-Colon), Nos. 17-1971, 17-1972, 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019), the First Circuit recently ruled that “special circumstances” does not authorize a bankruptcy court to use its equitable powers to contravene the numerosity requirement for an involuntary petition under section 303(b)(1) of the Code. This twelve year dispute did not end well for the petitioning creditors.

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure became effective on December 1, 2017, which impose affirmative obligations on secured creditors to protect their rights to distributions in a bankruptcy case. Previously, Bankruptcy Rule 3002(a) required only unsecured creditors and equity security holders to file proofs of claim or proofs of interest in a bankruptcy. Although often recommended, it was not statutorily necessary for a secured creditor to file a proof of claim in order to protect its rights.

Debtors who have filed for bankruptcy and received their Discharge often continue to receive collection letters and phone calls from their creditors. Some creditors even go so far as to sue on these discharged debts or garnish wages and bank accounts. Such actions may result in severe penalties, sanctions and damages. This article goes over the basics of the Bankruptcy Discharge and the importance of having measures in place to avoid violations.

What is the Bankruptcy Discharge?

The purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) is a powerful tool that enables lenders to take priority over the holders of prior perfected security interests that cover the same collateral. Those lenders seeking to obtain a PMSI often take great care to comply with the statutory perfection requirements. Yet, the notice requirements for a PMSI in inventory are every bit as important. A secured party that fails to comply with the PMSI notice requirements is likely to find its security interest subordinate to prior conflicting interests.

Earlier today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its long-awaited ruling in the Garvin v. Cook Investments, NW, SPNYW case This opinion is certain to be of great interest to both companies operating in the cannabis space and those attorneys representing them.

Judge Drain has now issued a long-awaited Order on Remand from the Second Circuit’s decision in Momentive Performance Materials determining the appropriate cramdown interest rate applicable to replacement notes issued by Momentive.

Last month, a federal district court affirmed a bankruptcy court’s ruling that an ex-NFL player’s potential future recovery from a concussion-related class action settlement agreement was shielded from the reach of creditors in the former player’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.  The ruling turned on the bankruptcy court’s finding that the potential future settlement payments were more akin to a disability benefit, which is exempt under Florida law, than a standard tort settlement, which is not.

Background

It is a well-established principle of bankruptcy law that claims generally crystallize as of the bankruptcy petition date. Of course, section 506(b) of the bankruptcy code allows over-secured, secured creditors to recover post-petition interest and costs, including reasonable legal fees, if their documentation provides them with the right to recover these costs. But what about unsecured creditors – are post-petition legal fees incurred by an unsecured creditor whose contract with the debtor provides for reimbursement of legal fees allowed or not?

In a win for lenders, on March 18, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that an unambiguous make-whole provision in a loan contract was enforceable under New York law, despite the fact that the lender had accelerated the loan. In re 1141 Realty Owner LLC, 2019 WL 1270818 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019).

Background

The subject matter jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts causes confusion and can be hard to understand. In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit clarified the meaning of the phrase “related to” in 28 U.S.C. §1334(b), the federal statute that governs the subject matter jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts.[1]