News
Supreme Court Doubleheader
The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (“NACBA”) reports, in its 2/3/15, e-newsletter to members, that NACBA has filed amicus briefs, in two bankruptcy cases on which the US Supreme Court has granted petitions of certiorari, as follows: NACBA filed amicus briefs on Monday in two Supreme Court cases: Harris v. Veigelahn, 14-400, and Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 14-116. Harris asks whether funds paid into a confirmed chapter 13 plan that are still in the trustee’s possession when the bankruptcy is converted to chapter 7 should be refunded to the debtor or paid to creditors. At the time of…
Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Mortgage Lien-Stripping Cases
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in the cases of Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona, and its decision later this year could have big implications for the U.S. housing market, the Financial Times reported today. The cases present the Supreme Court with the issue of whether, under Sect. 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code (which provides that “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void”), a chapter 7 debtor may “strip off” a junior mortgage lien in its entirety…
America’s Servicing Company v. Schwartz-Tallard
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a rehearing en banc in America’s Servicing Company v. Schwartz-Tallard, 765 F.3d 1096 (9th cir. 2014). The question presented in Schwartz-Tallard is whether debtor’s counsel may obtain a fee award for defending creditor’s appeal in stay violation cases. The Ninth Circuit’s original opinion turned on the application of a wrongly decided Ninth Circuit opinion of Sternberg v. Johnston, 595 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2010). In Sternberg, the Court held that debtor’s counsel could be awarded fees for ending a stay violation, but not for pursuing actual damages that resulted from the violation.…
Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument, on 1/14/15, in Wellness International LTD. v. Sharif
The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments, on 1/14/15, in the case of Wellness International Ltd. v. Sharif, in which the US Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Wellness case is the most recent opportunity for the Court to address the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Certiorari was granted on July 1, 2014, from a Seventh Circuit decision. The court will hear argument on the following issues: (1) Whether the presence of a subsidiary state property law issue in an 11 U.S.C. § 541 action brought against a debtor to determine whether property in the debtor’s possession is property of…
On 12/14/14, the US Supreme Court Granted Petitions for Certiorari (ie has agreed to review) in Two Different Bankruptcy Cases, Agreeing to Review Two Different Bankruptcy Issues
There is no right to appeal a bankruptcy issue from a US Court of Appeals, to the US Supreme Court. Instead, a party requests the US Supreme Court to review a bankruptcy decision (and most other kinds of decisions) of a US Court of Appeals, by filing a Petition for Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. Thousands of Petitions for Certiorari are filed each year, with the US Supreme Court, in various subject matters of cases. The US Supreme Court only grants certiorari (agrees to review the US Court of Appeals decision) in a tiny percent of those petitions for…
US Supreme Court has Recently Granted Petitions for Certiorari on Two Cases
The US Supreme Court has recently granted petitions for certiorari on two cases–Bank of America v. Calukett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona–involving mortgage lien-stripping in bankruptcy. The fact that the US Supreme Court granted certiorari, regarding these two cases, means that the US Supreme Court will review, and could either affirm or reverse, the two US Courts of Appeal decisions. If the US Supreme Court were to reverse present law, which is that lienstripping is NOT allowed in Chapter 7, and is only allowed (under specific, limited, circumstances in Chapter 11, 12 and 13), that would be a HUGE…
Bankruptcy Judge’s Ruling in City of Stockton Chapter 9 (Municipality) bankruptcy case, which allowed Stockton to reduce its pension debt owed to present and retired City Employees, Is Not a Free Pass for Cities to Cut Pensions, say Experts
Bankruptcy Judge’s Ruling in City of Stockton Chapter 9 (Municipality) bankruptcy case, which allowed Stockton to reduce its pension debt owed to present and retired City Employees, Is Not a Free Pass for Cities to Cut Pensions, say Experts Although Judge Christopher M. Klein ruled on Wednesday in the Stockton, Calif., chapter 9 case that the city could use bankruptcy to wipe away its pension debt, experts do not view the bankruptcy judge’s oral statement as a free pass for other California cities struggling with rising pension costs, the New York Times reported on Friday. “He did give us a…
US Supreme Court has granted certiorari, to hear appeal on Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC
On Oct. 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, No. 14-103. Baker Botts, which represented debtor-in-possession ASARCO LLC in one of the largest and most complex chapter 11 bankruptcy cases ever, obtained a fee award from the bankruptcy court of $113 million for fees and costs, $4.1 million as an enhancement, and $5 million for defending its fee application. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the $5 million award for defense of the fee application. Citing In re Pro-Snax Distributors Inc., 157 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 1998), and Bankruptcy…
Secondary Debt Collectors Must Give Notice, Judge Says
The fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires subsequent debt collectors to notify consumers in writing, even if the prior holder or debt collector had already given notice, a federal judge has ruled. Deciding an issue that has divided courts, Southern District Judge William Pauley III said secondary collectors still must send a validation notice to avoid confusion by consumers over who holds the debt and whether they have the right to contest it. In Tocco v. Real Time Resolutions, 14-cv-810, Pauley said the requirement of a validation notice in 15 U.S.C. &1692g “applies to initial communications from each successive debt…
IN ASARCO CASE, SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER FEES AND COSTS INCURRED DEFENDING FEE APPLICATIONS ARE COMPENSABLE US
IN ASARCO CASE, SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER FEES AND COSTS INCURRED DEFENDING FEE APPLICATIONS ARE COMPENSABLE US Supreme Court has granted certiorari, to review the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Baker Botts L.L.P., et al. v. Asarco, LLC. The US Supreme Court will review and decide whether the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was correct, or in error, in ruling that 11 USC §330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize compensation for the fees and costs that counsel incur while defending their fee applications in bankruptcy court. The Supreme Court’s decision should provide much-needed guidance on…