The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in Pacifica L 51, LLC v. New Investments, Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.) (16 C.D.O.S. 11723, Nov. 4, 2016), which held that a secured creditor can collect default interest in connection with a cure under a chapter 11 plan, thereby rendering void the long-established rule under Great W. Bank & Tr. v.

On November 8, 2016, Judge Kevin Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) that affects nine different bankruptcy cases. The Opinion was issued in response to the request of Honeywell and Ford for access to asbestos claimants’ Rule 2019 exhibits. A copy of the Opinion is available here.

Copyrighting their names, “signing” with red thumbprints – we’ve seen some unusual court filings from unique individuals. But one person has apparently gone too far.

It can be incredibly frustrating for a lender when a borrower defaults on a loan and asserts frivolous defenses in response. A group of individuals who call themselves “sovereign citizens” or “sovereign freemen” often makes lawsuits quite tedious by refusing to recognize the authority of the courts or the government, or claiming that the loan is invalid because it is based on “vapor money.”

Hoku, a publicly-owned Delaware corporation, filed for bankruptcy with just $8 million in assets compared to a relatively staggering $1.3 billion in liabilities, much of which was funded debt. In light of this significant insolvency, Hoku’s chapter 7 trustee brought various breach of fiduciary claims against Hoku’s board of directors, including one akin to a claim for “deepening insolvency.” As the case of Hopkins v.

In Huff Energy Fund v. Gershen, C.A. No. 11116-VCS, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder’s challenge to the board of director’s decision to dissolve the company following an asset sale. The Court ruled that the enhanced scrutiny standards of Revlon and Unocal do not supplant the business judgment rule in the context of a company’s decision to dissolve.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion for summary judgment in this 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) nondishargeability action. The plaintiff alleged the debtor willfully and maliciously injured the plaintiff, but failed to offer any evidence that would create a material factual dispute as to the debtor’s intent with respect to actions that gave rise to a prepetition judgment against the debtor. The court finds summary judgment in favor of the debtor is appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Burr & Forman lawyers won a significant victory in the Eleventh Circuit earlier this month. In the case In re: David A. Failla, — F.3d — (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that a person who agrees to “surrender” his house in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2) may not oppose the creditor’s foreclosure action in state court. Our firm was one of the first to advance this argument, and many, but not all, of the bankruptcy judges in Florida agreed with our interpretation of surrender under the bankruptcy code and related case law.

In my May 26th post, I raised several questions that unsecured creditors in any Chapter 11 case should know the answers to and take action where appropriate. One of those questions is “Am I entitled to priority payment?” This is also important to answer in a Chapter 7 case.

Under Section 521(a)(2)(A) of the federal bankruptcy code, a debtor in a chapter 7 bankruptcy must file a statement within 30 days of the bankruptcy filing notifying the court, creditors and the trustee whether the debtor intends to retain or surrender property encumbered by a mortgage.  In its October, 2016 decision in the case of In re Failla, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming rulings from the bankruptcy court and the federal district court, held that once a chapter 7 debtor elects to "surrender" mortgaged property, he is precluded from thereafter opposing

(6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2016)