Steven Enright and his wife borrowed money from a bank to buy dairy cows and other improvements for the family dairy farm. The bank loan was secured by assets of the Enrights, and also guaranteed by Steven’s parents, with the parents’ guarantee secured by a mortgage on the dairy farm itself (which was owned by the parents).
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of In Re: McCormick that a recorded North Carolina deed of trust indexed in a county’s grantor/grantee index may nevertheless be avoided by a trustee in bankruptcy if such county has elected a Parcel Identification Number (“PIN”) indexing system and the recorded deed of trust does not appear in such PIN index. This alert briefly describes the PIN system in North Carolina and the McCormick decision’s impact on the need for PINs in deeds of trust recorded in North Carolina counties that have adopted the PIN
On October 16, 2012, battery maker A123 Systems, Inc., and various subsidiaries, filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. A123 started its business in 2001 seeking to capitalize on the growing use of lithium-ion batteries in transportation and energy systems. According to papers filed with the Bankruptcy Court, the company first began producing commercial batteries in 2006. See Declaration of David Prystash in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions (hereinafter the "Decl.") at *4. By
A New York bankruptcy court recently held that a losing acquiror in a competing Chapter 11 plan fight had “standing” to seek reimbursement of its legal fees and expenses as a “substantial contribution” to the reorganization case. In re S & Y Enterprises, LLC, et al., 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 4622, at *4-*5 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2012). Nevertheless, the losing acquiror failed to recover because, in the court’s view, it did not satisfy the statutory requirements for reimbursement with the requisite “preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
Wright v. Owens Corning, 450 B.R. 541 (W.D. Pa. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2012 WL 1759992 (3rd Cir. Pa.) (May 18, 2012).
A New York bankruptcy court recently rejected a debtor’s challenge to a consensual state court judgment (“Judgment”) in favor of mortgagee, General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”), that had accelerated a debt and obtained a prepetition foreclosure judgment against debtor, 410 East 92nd Street (the “Hotel”), in the amount of approximately $74 million. In re: Madison 92nd St. Associates LLC, 472 B.R. 189 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012).
In re WL Homes LLC, Case No. 09-10571 (Bankr. D. Del. May 16, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The debtor’s insurer sought to lift the automatic stay in order to setoff $2.2 million in return premiums against potential defense costs that the insurer expected to incur related to certain insurance claims made against the debtor. The court denied the motion, finding that the insurer had not established a right to setoff under either state law or the Bankruptcy Code.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re Creekside Senior Apartments, LP, 2012 Fed App. 0008P (6th Cir. B.A.P. June 29, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In a case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit BAP held that, for purposes of valuing collateral under section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the availability of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits must be considered in valuing a creditor’s secured claim.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re Heritage Highgate, 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P., 2012 BL 140988 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The creditor appealed the denial of its claim for pre-petition interest at the contractual default rate. The district court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the bankruptcy court had incorrectly applied an "equitable analysis" in making its decision.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND