(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 13, 2017)

Following trial, the bankruptcy court enters judgment against the debtor, finding the loan debt owed to the bank is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The court finds that the debtor made false representations with respect to his ownership interest in real property and the existence of a debt owed, which representations were reasonably relied upon by the bank when making the loan. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Anthony R. Jost

Attorney for Defendant: KC Cohen

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2017)

It's time to make offshore operations great again

On March 30, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals filed an opinion regarding whether the filing of a mechanic’s lien after the commencement of a bankruptcy case violates the automatic stay. Given the frequent involvement of many companies in Delaware bankruptcy cases, you should be aware of the Third Circuit’s ruling.

A bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of California recently issued a decision that is sure to raise appellate eyebrows.

Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.

Dishonest plaintiffs can make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to successfully move for summary judgment. Indeed, a dishonest plaintiff who understands the legal landscape can easily defeat summary judgment by claiming that there exists “direct evidence” of discrimination in the form of an admission by management that the challenged employment action was motivated by discriminatory animus (e.g., “my supervisor told me he was firing me because of my age”).

Over the last several decades, the enforcement of intercreditor agreements ("ICAs") that purport to affect voting rights and the rights to receive payments of cash or other property in respect of secured claims have played an increasingly prominent role in bankruptcy cases. Although the Bankruptcy Code provides that "subordination agreement[s]" are enforceable in bankruptcy to the same extent such agreements are enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law, the handling of creditor disputes regarding such agreements has been inconsistent.i

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a ruling that disallowed an unsecured creditor’s claim filed in a California bankruptcy court based on the forum state’s statute of limitations.

In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that, although courts typically apply the forum state’s statute of limitations if the contract is silent on the issue, exceptional circumstances warranted the application of a longer statute of limitations here, because the creditor had no option but to enforce its claim in the forum based on where the bankruptcy petition was filed.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. April 17, 2017)