Bankruptcy Law Commons^™

Who Has Standing To Object To A Debtor’S Reorganization Plan? Analyzing Section 1128(B)’S “Party In Interest” Bankruptcy Standing Requirement And The “Persons Aggrieved” Appellate Standing Test, Michael Battema

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In a decision with important implications for parties listed in debtor reorganization plans, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reiterated its position that section 1128(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) should be interpreted broadly to permit any listed party whose rights might be implicated by a debtor’s reorganization plan the ability to object to the plan’s terms in bankruptcy court. In its decision, the Third Circuit distinguishes between a party’s right to object to a debtor’s confirmation plan in bankruptcy court (“Bankruptcy Standing”) versus that party’s ability to appeal the debtor’s confirmation ruling …

In Re Awal Bank: Expanding Ability To Avoid Setoff In Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Cases, Jacob Chase

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Foreign bankruptcy representatives seeking to avoid setoff of fund transfers pursuant to section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code may enjoy more flexible standards than ever before. In a recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York, In re Awal Bank, Judge Gropper allowed the foreign representative for Awal Bank to avoid a setoff by HSBC even though the bank had not filed a plenary chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy proceeding within 90 days of the setoff, holding that Awal Bank’s filing under Chapter 15 within the relevant 90 day look-back period …

Is Your Retainer Safe?: How In Re Two Gales Ensures That Bankruptcy Professionals Keep Their Retainer Fees, Jonathan Abramovitz

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In a decision that bankruptcy professionals are certain to applaud, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit held that bankruptcy courts must not order disgorgement of attorneys’ retainers in bankruptcy cases if the attorney has perfected a lien in the retainer under state law. Prior to In re Two Gales, some bankruptcy courts had justified disgorgement as necessary to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 726(b), which requires administrative claimants to be compensated through pro rata distributions upon administrative insolvency. In re Two Gales confirmed what some other bankruptcy courts have already held: section 726(b) is …

Same-Sex Married Debtors May File A Joint Petition For Bankruptcy, Jennifer Arcarola

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Legally married couples may file a petition for bankruptcy jointly under section 302(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”). The choice to file jointly is limited to only include married spouses, excluding partners and people in civil unions. Across virtually all jurisdictions, courts have explicitly rejected joint filings under section 302(a) filed by unmarried debtors. For example, an adult child cannot file for bankruptcy jointly with a parent, nor can a cohabiting unmarried couple file together. While the Bankruptcy Code does not purport to define who may qualify as a married couple, the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) does, …

Trustees Beware: Reviewing The Circuit Split On Bankruptcy Trustee Personal Liability, Barry Z. Bazian

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Imagine that you have been appointed to serve as a trustee in a bankruptcy case. As the “representative of the estate,” one of your responsibilities is to properly manage the estate’s assets. You decide to invest the estate’s funds in several risky penny stocks, relying on minimal research you performed online. Unfortunately, these investments quickly decrease in value, substantially diminishing the value of the estate. Now, of course, the debtor and his creditors are angry and want to sue you for mismanaging the estate’s funds. Can you be held personally liable? In other words, will you have to pay …

An Exercise In Economics: Determining “Value” Under § 548 Of The Bankruptcy Code, Gregory R. Bruno

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Determining whether a debtor receives value for a constructively fraudulent prepetition transfer under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code can prove troublesome when a debtor receives only an indirect, intangible benefit. Section 548 allows a bankruptcy trustee to avoid and recover a debtor’s prepetition transfers for which the debtor did not receive “reasonably equivalent value.” However, judicial interpretation of the term “value” has greatly limited the kinds of benefits to the debtor that might qualify.

Gold v. Marquette (In re Leonard) both illustrates the limitations that courts have placed on the term “value” for purposes of section …

Avoidability Of Foreclosure Sales Under Section 547 Of The Bankruptcy Code, Adam Cohen

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Should foreclosure sales that comply with state law be subject to avoidance under federal bankruptcy law? In BFP v. Trust Resolution Corp., the Supreme Court said no, at least when dealing with alleged section 548 fraudulent conveyances, as doing so would, inter alia, undermine state interests and raise substantial federalism concerns. Some courts have taken this reasoning and applied it to section 547 preferences as well, while others feel that the plain language of section 547 prohibits such an application. One recent case in the latter category is In re Whittle Development, Inc.

In general, transfers are …

Exploring The Enforceability Of Pre-Petition Hindrance Mechanisms To Prevent Bankruptcy, Joshua Eisenson

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Insolvency and bankruptcy pose great risks to a creditor’s investments. Although business entities can never be truly bankruptcy-proof, certain techniques are commonly deployed to make debtors as bankruptcy-remote as possible. Creditors and practitioners have devised and employed a multitude of “hindrance mechanisms” to significantly discourage bankruptcy petitions, while not directly causing debtors to waive their right to voluntarily file for bankruptcy. Creditors will often require debtors to accept these contractual provisions to make it more difficult, or practically impossible, for debtors to declare bankruptcy. However, as a rule of law, courts will render a hindrance mechanism per se invalid …

The Challenge Of Retaining Interest For Original Equity Owners, Michael Harary

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Bankruptcy reorganization plans can pose a challenge for old equity shareholders wanting to retain their interests in a reorganized entity, Under the Bankruptcy Code these plans give most creditors a higher priority to receive equity in the reorganized company before shareholders. However, shareholders have different options that can aid them in retaining interests in the company; one such option is the contribution of new value that is subject to market evaluation.

Recently, in H.G. Roebuck & Son, Inc. v. Alter Communications, Inc., (“Roebuck”), the United States District Court for the District of Maryland reversed the bankruptcy …

Assumption Under Section 365(C)(1) Creates Uncertainty For Debtors, Heather Hili

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The assumption and assignment of executory contracts raises many issues in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. One issue is whether the trustee can assume an executory contract, thus forcing the non-debtor party to accept performance from the debtor-in-possession. Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) attempts to resolve this issue by providing that a trustee may not assume or assign an executory contract when applicable law would excuse the non-debtor party from accepting performance from someone other than the debtor-in-possession. But courts relying on Section 365(c)(1) to resolve this issue have interpreted it in different ways, creating a split among the …

Judicial Enforcement Of Default Interest Rates, Michael Lutfy

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Although secured creditors use default interest rates to protect their security interest throughout the bankruptcy process, courts are not required to enforce those contractual provisions. Secured creditors can legitimately use default interest rates to provide an offset for the “costs and delay of the bankruptcy process.” Equitable considerations may require judicial nullification of default interest rates. Inequitable default interest rates directly contradict the policy goals of bankruptcy. The difficulty in determining the reasonableness of default interest rates results from competing policy interests within bankruptcy. Courts favor enforcing contractual obligations and preserving rights inside of bankruptcy, as they would have …

In Re Pichhi; Modifications Of Multi-Family Home Mortgages, Patrick Mcburney

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In a decision with important implications for lenders in the real estate business, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit determined that debtors can strip down a creditor’s under-secured claim in a multi-family dwelling to the appraised value of the property. While the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010 (“BTCA”) were in effect at the time of the decision, the panel decided the issue under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) because both parties argued the issue under the BAPCPA definitions and declined to raise the applicability of BTCA to the issue. Specifically …

The Evolution Of The Settlement Payment Defense?, Tianja Samuel

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Each year U.S. bankruptcy courts decide hundreds of cases in which debtors, or their trustees, seek to avoid preferential payments. In many of these cases, creditors successfully defend themselves by convincing the court that a statutory safe harbor provision is applicable. The settlement payment defense is one safe harbor provision that—although frequently utilized by creditors—has consistently raised questions about its own scope and applicability. The Second Circuit answered some of these questions, for the first time, in In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. In what some believe was an expansive decision, the court held that the settlement payment …

In Re Shamus Holdings, Llc And The Automatic Stay, Matthew Silverman

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The automatic stay is recognized as one of the fundamental protections provided by bankruptcy law. The automatic stay prevents creditors from taking almost any type of formal or informal action against the debtor, including commencing or continuing foreclosure actions. There are, however, certain exceptions to the automatic stay, exceptions that permit the creditor to take action against the debtor despite the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding. This memorandum focuses on one such exception, contained in section 362(b)(3) of the Code, and the effect courts have held it to have on the automatic tolling provision of the Bankruptcy Code. The …

Priority Treatment Of Employee Severance Compensation Claims, Eric Small

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

When a bankrupt company terminates employees, those former employees often have claims against the estate for severance compensation. Sections 507(a) and 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provide for the priority treatment of such claims. Those sections apply to claims arising both pre-petition and post-petition. In the pre-petition context, courts must determine if a claim was earned within the pre-petition period prescribed by section 507(a)(4). For post-petition claims, whether such claims are given administrative expense priority for the full amount claimed turns on courts’ analysis of when the claims were earned, when services were rendered, and if and when the …

Attorney Retention And Disqualification In Bankruptcy, Jessica Stukonis

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Two essential issues to bankruptcy practitioners are attorney retention and the threat of disqualification. These issues are closely related and are governed by several ethical rules and bankruptcy statutes. Generally, all legal professionals must abide by the standards imposed by their states’ ethical code, which are largely adapted from the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Model Rules”). Bankruptcy practitioners, however, must also abide by section 327 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), which only permits the retention of “disinterested” professionals in a proceeding. If the attorney does not meet these standards, the presiding …

Does Section 329 Grant Exclusive Jurisdiction To Bankruptcy Courts?, Samantha M. Tusa

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Fee agreements between bankruptcy debtors and their counsel must often be settled in court. In which court those fee disputes can be heard is a question that is not yet settled. One court has looked to section 329 of the Bankruptcy Code for the answer. Section 329 states that if the compensation agreed upon by the debtor and attorney exceeds a reasonable value for the services rendered, “the court” may cancel the agreement or return some of the payment. In re Piccinini is the first case to hold that the phrase “the court” in section 329 confers exclusive jurisdiction …

Intentional Conduct May Be Required To Prove Defalcation Under Section 523(A)(4) In Certain Circuits, Elizabeth Vanderlinde

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In the average bankruptcy case, individual debtors seek to discharge some, all, or most of their debts. The Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) sets certain limits on the dischargeability of obligations. For example, section 523 of the Code provides circumstances in which certain debts are not dischargeable. Specifically, section 523(a)(4) provides that an individual debtor will not be discharged from any debt “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” In the bankruptcy context, defalcation means “the failure to meet an obligation.” However, the Code is silent as to the level of culpability required to prove defalcation. The …

Class Proofs Of Claim And Class Certification In Bankruptcy, Ravi Vohra

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Rules”) make class action procedures available to litigants in bankruptcy litigation. However, the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) and Rules leave open the question of whether a class representative may file a class proof of claim on behalf of a putative class. Because the Code and Rules are silent, bankruptcy courts have to look to case law to “fill the gaps.” Different courts have adopted different interpretations, and a circuit split has emerged regarding the permissibility of class proofs of claim.

Initially, most bankruptcy courts and the first court of appeal that addressed …

Granting Foreign Representatives Automatic Section 108 Relief In Chapter 15 Cases, Andrew J. Zapata

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In a matter of first impression, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) in In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. was confronted with the issue of whether the tolling provisions of section 108 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) are automatically available to Foreign Representatives in chapter 15 cases. As written, section 108(a) of the Code gives trustees, rather than Foreign Representatives, a minimum two-year extension from when the order for relief is entered to commence claims in the interest of the debtor’s estate. However, in In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., the Court looked …

Case Analysis Of In Re Atlantic Gulf Comtys. Corp., Meagan Mahar

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In In re Atlantic Gulf Comtys. Corp., a Delaware Bankruptcy Court applied New York law to both equitable and legal arguments made by the debtor, holding that funds in an escrow account created by the debtor were not property of the debtor’s estate. 369 B.R. 156, 164–65 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007). First, this memo will examine the two opposing legal and equitable arguments made by the parties, with each relying on different theories of characterizing the debtor’s interest in escrow accounts as they have evolved throughout New York caselaw. Second, it will analyze the contingency argument made by the …

Defense Of In Pari Delicto Does Not Affect Trustee Standing, Elizabeth L. Anderson

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Rejecting the Second Circuit’s Wagoner rule and agreeing with the First, Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the collusion of corporate insiders with third parties to injure the corporation does not deprive the corporation’s trustee of standing to sue third parties, resulting in a greater rift between Second Circuit and the other Courts of Appeal on this issue. Moratzka v. Morris, 482 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, the court affirmed that such a situation may give rise to the defense of in pari delicto barring the …

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 …

Ride Through Option For Real Property Survived Bapcpa, James Lynch

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The Bankruptcy Abuse Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) largely eliminated the so-called “ride through” option for security interests in personal property; however, for nearly two years there was no clear indication as to whether the ride through option still existed for security interests in real property. Recently, in In re Caraballo, the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court confronted this uncertainty head on and determined that the ride through option still exists for real property. 386 B.R. 398, 400 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2008). Importantly for bankrupt individuals, utilizing the ride through option allows them to “keep their property during and after bankruptcy …

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 …

In Re Kara Homes, Inc., Anna Drynda

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for District of New Jersey held in In re Kara Homes, Inc., 363 B.R. 399 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2007) that secured construction lenders of affiliated chapter 11 debtors were entitled to expedited relief from an automatic stay of foreclosure pursuant to section 362(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code because the court determined each debtor constituted single asset real estate case under section 101(51B) of the Code. The significance of expedited relief under section 362(d)(3) is it imposes an “expedited time frame for filing a plan” of reorganization in chapter 11 for single asset real estate …

A Prime Brokers Good Faith Defense To Fraudulent Transfers, Michael Maffei

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The exposure of Madoff Ponzi scheme, and others like it, will undoubtedly have an impact on the way that bankruptcy courts deal with fraudulent transfers to prime brokers, particularly the degree to which the prime broker on inquiry notice of fraud must act with diligence. Due to the recent economic tumult, the number of bankruptcies is continually growing. Another result of the economic decline is that a large number of investment funds have failed. After these funds failed, many prime brokers discovered that some of the funds were not operating funds at all. They were in fact Ponzi schemes. …

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 …

Allowing Trustee Removal For Cause, Sua Sponte, After Notice And A Hearing, Jonathan Grasso

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The issue of whether a bankruptcy judge can sua sponte remove a trustee has rarely been addressed; however, two courts have recently considered the issue. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in Morgan v. Goldman (In re Morgan), 375 B.R. 838 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2007) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Walden v. Walker (In re Walker), 515 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2008) both concluded that a bankruptcy judge has the ability to remove a trustee “for cause,” sua sponte, after “notice and a hearing.”

Morgan was the first case to ever deal …

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 …