A federal bankruptcy imposed sanctions against two mortgage companies and their attorneys for making misrepresentations as to which party was the true holder of the mortgage and note. Decisions such as the one in In re Nosek resonate with particular significance as the mortgage crisis continues to have widespread ramifications.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has determined that a bankruptcy court may withdraw the derivative standing conferred on a statutory committee without that committee’s consent. Official Comm. of Equity Sec. Holders of Adelphia Communications Corp. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Adelphia Communications Corp. (In re Adelphia Communications Corp.), 544 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2008).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has issued a decision that provides an important summary concerning the circumstances under which state law causes of action asserted between nondebtor parties are sufficiently interconnected with claims brought against a debtor to be considered “core proceedings,” which may be determined as part of a bankruptcy case. In re Exide Technologies, 544 F.3d 196 (3d. Cir. 2008).
Introduction
Introduction
In In re Entringer Bakeries, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the viability of the “earmarking doctrine” as a judicially-created defense to a preference action under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Introduction:
Investors victimized by the fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff and his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (collectively Madoff), should be aware of their legal options and risks. Some of these options have very short deadlines. Likewise, investors who successfully withdrew their investments before Madoff`s fraud came to light could face potential claims. In either circumstance, the prospects of litigation are high.
The Sixth Circuit recently held that section 2-702(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), which permits good faith purchasers to defeat a valid right to reclaim, does not allow a secured creditor to defeat that right.[1] The Sixth Circuit found that the security interest held by a DIP lender could not be used to defeat the right of a reclaiming creditor under the UCC or pre-BAPCPA section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. This decision may impact the way bankruptcy courts consider reclamation claims under revised section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss two proposed bills, H.R. 200, the “Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009” and H.R. 225, the “Emergency Homeownership and Equity Protection Act", that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of certain mortgages on principal homes during bankruptcy proceedings. H.R.