In a recent decision in “a matter of first impression,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit squarely rejected the view that “triangular setoffs” fall within the protective circle of § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Sites Committee
Committees
On March 27, President Joseph Biden signed the COVID-19 Relief Extension Act into law. The Act extends for another full year the provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) that temporarily modified the Bankruptcy Code and the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), or subchapter V of chapter 11.
In 2020, New York State passed the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020[1] (“moratorium”).
Secured creditors whose collateral includes its borrowers’ accounts are empowered by Article 9 to collect money that is owed to borrowers from their borrowers’ account debtors, by a simple notice process. The secured creditor can notify account debtors of the security interest and advise them that they should pay the secured creditor directly, instead of paying the borrower.
In a pair of decisions, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas took on two fundamental issues arising in an adversary proceeding for nondischargeability concerning a judgment for defamation arising out of alleged sexual misconduct. In Joseph Mazzara v.
February 2020 brought some good news for borrowers hoping to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy with Judge Cecelia Morris’s decision in Rosenberg v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp.[1] That hope seemed to be quashed again by the Second Circuit in March in an appeal by a different debtor in Tingling v.
On March 25, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a chapter 7 discharge prohibits the holders of a nondischargeable debt from suing the debtor post-discharge to collect a judgment. Specifically, the ruling in Suvicmon Dev. Inc. v.
In re Horvath[1] provides a cautionary tale for debtors who seek to address judgment liens post-discharge, whether strategically or due to pre-filing negligence.
Two recent district court decisions, each involving appeals of a bankruptcy sale order where the appellant(s) failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, provide insight into statutory mootness under § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code. In both In re HDR Holdings Inc.[1] and Barnes v.
More U.S. companies filed bankruptcies with liabilities exceeding $1 billion in 2020 than in any year since 2009.[1] Bankruptcy courts are often left with difficult decisions in these complex bankruptcies, including whether to approve the winning bid in an asset sale under § 363.
