On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States granted cert in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348 (Oct. Term 2016) to resolve a split among the Circuits as to the FDCPA’s prohibition against deceptive collection practices in the context of filing proofs of claim for debts where a collection action would otherwise be time-barred.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case Bash v.
Bankruptcy
At the risk of stating the obvious, the collapse of oil and gas prices in the last several quarters has had a profound impact on the industry. Some E & P companies have been able to weather this storm, but other have not been so fortunate. In the time between 2014 and September 14, 2016, 102 oil and gas producers with cumulative debts of over $67 billion, 13 midstream companies with cumulative debts of over $17 billion and 132 oilfield service companies with cumulative debts of over $14 billion have filed bankruptcy petitions.
In a recent memorandum decision, Judge Robert S. Bardwil of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California sanctioned a Sacramento attorney and ordered him to complete a local e-filing course because he did not maintain copies of filed documents that included the original “wet” signature.
Key points:
While DIP Lenders rightfully negotiate for super-priority administrative expenses which trump post conversion chapter 7 administrative expenses, these provisions are not uniformly enforced.
DIP Lenders should require the inclusion of specific language providing that section 364(c)(1) super-priority claims have priority over chapter 7 administrative expense claims, including those to be incurred by a chapter 7 trustee above the agreed upon “burial expenses.”
Last month, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York published proposed amendments to its local rules effective December 1, 2016 (the “Proposed Amendments”). Links to the Bankruptcy Court’s notice to the bar with respect to the Proposed Amendments and the full text of the Proposed Amendments are provided below. The Proposed Amendments are currently open for public comment. The comment deadline is November 14, 2016 by 5:00 p.m.
Below is summary of substantive changes effected by the Proposed Amendments which may be of interest to practitioners:
In an 8 page decision dated October 19, 2016, Judge Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court overruled an objection to the reclassification of the claim of a terminated employee. Judge Carey’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”). This employee (“Mangan”) was a fifteen year veteran of the Debtor, and was entitled to 15 weeks of severance pay upon termination. That is not in dispute.
In an August 2016 decision in the Aéropostale bankruptcy case,1 the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that allegations of insider trading did not justify equitable subordination and were not “cause” to deny a credit bid. The decision helps bridge the gap between the treatment of insider trading allegations in bankruptcy court and their treatment everywhere else.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2016)
The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this adversary proceeding arising from a transaction involving the sale of a restaurant and associated assets. The court finds that rights in the purchase agreement were effectively assigned to the plaintiff, and the purchase agreement should be reformed to reflect the proper selling party. Further, the court finds that various defendants are liable to the plaintiff on breach of warranty, conversion, and other claims. Opinion below.
Judge: Lorch
A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas in In re Sanjel (USA) Inc.,et al., Case No. 16-50778-CAG (Bankr. W.D. Tex. July 29, 2016) explains that in a Chapter 15 case, the U.S. bankruptcy court will not always apply the law of the foreign jurisdiction to U.S. creditors and U.S.-based claims.