Law Commons^™

A Bankruptcy Court’S “Preference” Towards Mandatory Mediation, Seth Meyer

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Mediation has gained general acceptance in the legal community but has been slow to take root in bankruptcy. See generally Geetha Ravindra, Reflections on Institutionalizing Mediation, 14 DISP. RESOL. MAG. 28, (Spring/Summer 2008). Over the past 20 years, mandatory bankruptcy mediation has become a feasible alternative to traditional litigation of adversary proceedings. In the beginning, creditors and debtors would mediate only if they agreed to mediate. As statutory authority for court ordered mediation strengthened, bankruptcy courts ordered parties to mediate with more regularity. Presently, mandatory mediation is statutorily authorized and bankruptcy courts have institutionalized the use of mandatory bankruptcy …

American Home Mortgage, Holdings, Inc. V. Lehman Brothers Inc., Valerie Sokha

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The derivatives provisions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) amendments greatly enlarged the scope of the financial contracts that are shielded from traditional bankruptcy limitations such as the automatic stay and the prohibition on ipso facto clauses. Those exceptions were reaffirmed in a strong anti-debtor opinion in Am. Home Mortg. Inv. Corp. v. Lehman Bros. (In re Am. Home Mortg. Holdings, Inc.), 388 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Del 2008). Although Lehman may now regret its victory since it is a debtor in its own bankruptcy case, it succeeded in defeating a number …

Discharge Under The Code For Erisa "Fiduciaries", Devin Sullivan

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) provides debtors with relief from many of their outstanding debts. However, even under the broad protection of the Code, some debts cannot be erased. Pursuant to section 523(a)(4) of the Code, an individual debtor may not discharge any debt for fraud or defalcation (unauthorized appropriation of money) while acting in a fiduciary capacity. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The federal courts are currently split on the issue of whether a debtor who qualifies as a “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et seq, (“ERISA”) will also qualify as …

Lien Preservation Does Not Give Trustee Right To Collect All Debt, Elizabeth Filardi

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In Morris v. St. John National Bank, 516 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2008), the Tenth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a bankruptcy trustee who successfully avoids a lien and preserves the in rem security interest for the bankruptcy estate under the powers granted to him by the Bankruptcy Code automatically assumes all the rights the original lienholder may have against the debtor. The Court, affirming the decisions of the bankruptcy court and bankruptcy appellate panel, concluded the trustee did not automatically assume all the rights the original lienholder may have against the debtor. Id. at 1212. …

Trustee's Ability To Waive Individual Debtor’S Attorney-Client Privilege, Rebecca Leaf

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Courts disagree about whether a trustee may waive an individual debtor's attorney-client privilege. Although the Supreme Court has addressed the issue in the case of corporate debtors, it has not done so in the case of individual debtors. Thus, lower courts have adopted three approaches to cases involving individual debtors: allowing the trustee to always waive privilege, never allowing the trustee to waive privilege, and a balancing approach.

This memo explores the importance of the attorney-client privilege, its relevant statutory bases, Supreme Court precedent, and the three approaches mentioned above. This memo also considers the advantages and disadvantages of …

Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. V. Knupfer, Thomas Scappaticci

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

An important and traditional power afforded by the Bankruptcy Code to debtors and trustees is the power to sell encumbered property free and clear of any liens or encumbrances. See G COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY, App. Pt. 44, at 44-529 (Alan N. Resnick et al. eds., 15th ed. rev. 2006). One way in which this power is given to debtors and trustees is through Section 363(f)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a mechanism for property to be sold free and clear of any liens. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)(3) (2006). Yet, the application of Section 363(f)(3) is not entirely …

No Mention Of “Cure” In Section 363 Means Default Interest Rate Applies, Caitlin Cline

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In General Electric Capital Corp. v. Future Media Productions, Inc., the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether an oversecured creditor is entitled to the contracted-for default rate of interest when the creditor has been paid in full pursuant to an asset sale governed by § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Despite prior precedent to the contrary, the court answered the question in the affirmative. In its previous decision in Great Western Bank & Trust v. Entz- White Lumber and Supply, Inc. (In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc.), where the debtor had paid the creditor in …

Negligent Vehicular Homicide Caps A Debtor’S Homestead Exemption, Christine Knoesel

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In an expansive reading of the homestead exemption cap added by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), the First Circuit Court of Appeals, in Larson v. Howell, held that criminal negligence is sufficient to trigger the section 522(q)(1)(B)(iv) homestead exemption cap. 513 F.3d 325, 328 (1st Cir. 2008). In Larson v. Howell, Larson was found guilty of negligent vehicular homicide. In Larson’s bankruptcy case, the homestead exemption cap was applied because the debt arose from a criminal act. Id. at 327. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the cap should apply …

Narrowing The Scope Of Auditor Duties, David Margulies

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The tort of “deepening insolvency” refers to an action asserted by a representative of a bankruptcy estate against directors, officers, lenders, or others based on their pre-petition interactions with the debtor. 9 NORTON BANKR. L. & PRAC. 3d § 174:22. Liability under deepening insolvency has been imposed where “the defendant’s conduct, either fraudulently or even negligently, prolongs the life of a corporation, thereby increasing the corporation's debt and exposure to creditors.” In re LTV Steel Co., Inc., 333 B.R. 397, 421 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005). Damages under the theory are sometimes awarded to a bankrupt corporation when, by delaying …

Bapcpa Does Not Require The Chapter 13 Means Test In Individual Chapter 11 Cases, Steven Saal

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) was implemented in order to prevent debtors from unjustly shielding value in their estate from deserving creditors and thus abusing the functionality of the federal bankruptcy system. Specifically, one problem perceived to be very prevalent was a practice by individual debtors who would seek to avoid the stringent guidelines of the “means test” in Chapter 13 cases by running for the protection of the more relaxed standards in Chapter 11 cases. The BAPCPA Amendments to section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code were adopted to institute stricter standards in Chapter 11 …

In Re Whitehall Jewelers Holdings, Inc., Jonathan Borst

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In In re Whitehall Jewelers Holdings, Inc., No. 08-11261(KG), 2008 WL 2951974 (Bankr. D. Del. July 28, 2008), the court held against Whitehall Jewelers Holdings, Inc. (“Debtors”), in favor of approximately 124 consignment vendors (“Consignment Vendors”), where Debtors sought an order permitting the “free and clear” sale of all of their assets and inventory, including consigned goods from Consignment Vendors. See id. at *1–2. In order to develop a full understanding of the court’s holding, it is necessary to understand its statutory context, specifically sections 363 and 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, as well as Federal Rule of …

Applying The “Applicable” Standard Or The Actual Amount: Monthly Rent In A Debtor’S Chapter 13 Plan, Paola Chiarenza

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Under The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) (S. 256, Pub. L. No. 109–8, 119 Stat. 23), debtors are subjected to a test in order to ensure their creditors are repaid as much as possible. Chapter 13 requires debtors in bankruptcy to file a plan indicting a monthly amount they will repay to creditors over a given set of years. The amount to be repaid is a debtor’s entire “disposable income,” which is income minus expenses. See 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (2007). Deductable expenses are to be calculated the same as a chapter 7 filing. …

Chapter 13 Plan Must Pay Adequate Protection Payments Prior To Attorney’S Fees, Brian Lacoff

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In In re Dispirito, a decision of importance to Chapter 13 debtors’ attorneys, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that an undersecured creditor was entitled not only to adequate protection payments, but that the section 507(b), 11 U.S.C. § 507(b) (2006), “super-priority” status of the inadequate adequate protection provided during the case meant that the Chapter 13 plan had to pay those amounts before paying any of the debtor’s attorneys fees. 371 B.R. 695, 695 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2007). This article will compare how the Dispirito court’s ruling compares to other bankruptcy court’s rulings. It …

Whether Negative Equity Is Part Of Purchase Money Security Interest?, Vitaly Libman

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The 2005 BAPCPA amendments have turned routine car purchases into a source of litigation in the federal courts. The litigation stems from the financing agreements made during the transaction. Today, these financing agreements often require the purchaser to repay loans over a term of five years or longer. See, e.g. In re Peaslee, 358 B.R. 545, 554 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2006). During these long terms, cars rapidly depreciate in value. Consequently, many consumers are left with vehicles that have a market value less then the amount of debt still owed on them. This deficiency is called “negative equity.” Often, consumers …

Giant Eagle, Inc. V. Phar-Mor, Inc., Courtney Pasquariello

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Although under Pennsylvania common law a lessor has a duty to mitigate damages and is unable to claim damages that could have been avoided, no legal proposition exists that an injured lessor who attempts mitigation of damages resulting from a lessee’s misconduct must bear the consequences of a failed effort. Although the lessor received partial mitigation of a claim against a liable lessee, the lessee nonetheless remains liable for his previous breach.

Non-Claim Status Of Environmental Clean-Up Injunctions Limited To States, Klevis Peshtani

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Does the equitable right of an individual, whose property has been damaged by the debtor’s pollution, to injunctive clean-up relief constitute a “claim” that may be discharged in the debtor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy? This was the issue of first impression which the Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court dealt with in Krafczek v. Exide Corp., No. 00-1965, 2007 WL 1199530, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2007). The Krafczek court answered the question in the affirmative, 2007 WL 1199530 at *3, setting new precedent in an already narrow area of Bankruptcy Law upon which other courts had trodden carefully.

This article …

Can Software Be A Bankruptcy Petition Preparer?, Thomas Szaniawski

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Recently, in Reynoso v. United States (In re Reynoso) — a case of first impression for the Ninth Circuit that addressed the intersection of cyberspace and bankruptcy — the court held that a provider of web-based bankruptcy software was a bankruptcy petition preparer (“BPP”) under 11 U.S.C. section 110 and that under California law, the features and functionality of the software went beyond mere typesetting and constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Reynoso v. United States (In re Reynoso), 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2007). In re Reynoso is significant because prior to this …

What Exactly Does The Term “Fair And Equitable” Mean?, Peter Doggett Jr.

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In a plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Code outlines a priority scheme that must be strictly adhered to. 11 U.S.C. § 1129. According to the Code, “the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). When faced with the question of extending the codified priority rule to settlement approvals, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. AWECO Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1984) held …

Repossession Does Not Alter Debtor’S Rights In Collateral, Ian Park

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Does section 541(a)(1) of title 11 of the U.S. Code, which defines a debtor’s bankruptcy “estate,” include collateral which has been lawfully repossessed by secured creditors pursuant to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) prior to the debtor’s filing for bankruptcy? The courts have split in answering this pro-debtor issue by defining “estate” differently. Recently, in Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Curry (In re Curry), 509 F.3d 735, 735 (6th Cir. 2007), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals split with the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits and held that a secured creditor’s repossession of collateral under the state’s …

The Exclusive View V. The Non-Exclusive View: Can A Creditor’S Claim Be Dismissed For Failing To Provide Supporting Documentation?, Robert J. Ryan

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

May a creditor’s claim be dismissed simply because he failed to provide supporting documentation in violation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001? The answer depends on which jurisdiction the creditor is pursuing its claim in. Courts are currently sharply divided on the issue. If the creditor is fortunate enough to be in a jurisdiction which follows the “exclusive” view, which is the majority rule, the answer to this problem will be yes. However, if the creditor happens to be in a jurisdiction which follows the “non-exclusive” view, which is the minority rule, the answer to this problem will …