Defendants in a lawsuit didn’t waive their right to arbitrate even after moving to dismiss and answering a complaint, a court held last week. Arbitration wasn’t waived because the defendants hadn’t filed affirmative defenses or counterclaims and had taken no discovery. Trevino v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (In re Jose Sr. Trevino), Adv. Pro. No. 16-7024, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 3605 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2018).

Alno AG, a manufacturer and retailer of kitchen furniture headquartered in Pfullendorf, Germany, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 15 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-12651).

LBI Media, Inc., along with seventeen affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 12655).

In re Altadena Lincoln Crossing LLC, 2018 Westlaw 3244502 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.), a California bankruptcy court held that a default interest rate provision was an unenforceable penalty under applicable California law because, among other things, the applicable loan agreements did not contain an estimate of the probable costs to the lender resulting from the debtor’s default.

Background

It happens all too often: a company declares bankruptcy and then the company’s bank, vendors, or other creditors are forced to return a payment that the company made before declaring bankruptcy because the payment was a “fraudulent transfer” under the bankruptcy code. When that happens, the creditor typically files a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case to recover its payment. To succeed, the creditor must show that it provided some benefit to the debtor in exchange for its payment.

In Lone Star State Bank of West Texas v. Waggoner, et al. (In re Waggoner Cattle, LLC), Adv. P. No. 18-02003 (RLJ) (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2018), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas reminded us that creditor’s claims against third parties can confer jurisdiction on a bankruptcy court when the claims could have a conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.

• A bankruptcy court in Ohio recently applied the incorrect statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action.
• Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence has evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one opinion to supposedly well-settled law stating the complete opposite in another opinion.
• Federal courts interpreting Ohio law must apply the correct statute of limitations to mortgage foreclosure actions.

In the bankruptcy case of In re Fisher, 584 B.R. 185, 199–200 (N.D. Ohio Bankr.

Fairway Energy, LP, along with two subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a chapter 11 petition for relief in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12684).

Piercing the corporate veil (PCV) is a remedy often pursued by a creditor of an insolvent entity against the entity’s parent or principal.  While the corporate veil generally shields a shareholder from the general obligations of his or her corporation, PCV allows a creditor to look beyond the corporate shield and, in certain instances, hold a shareholder liable for the corporation’s debts.

In the wake of Sears’ pending Chapter 11 proceeding, the company has initially sought court approval to close approximately 234 stores across the U.S., including branded locations of Sears and Kmart (which merged with Sears in 2005 in a prior bankruptcy). Those stores include approximately five in Wisconsin, 11 in Illinois, four in Colorado, four in North Carolina, and five in Utah – all states in which Michael Best has offices. The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York is set to hear the matter on November 15, 2018.