Second Circuit Says: SBA Can Deny PPP Funds To Bankruptcy Debtors (Springfield v. SBA)

The setting of the sun (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By Donald L. Swanson Here’s a vindication for the Small Business Administration’s discrimination against bankruptcy debtors: On March 16, 2022, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a Bankruptcy Court Order that prohibited the SBA from denying PPP funds to bankruptcy debtors. The opinion is Springfield Hospital,... Continue Reading →

Can A Pre-Bankruptcy Agreement Waive A Bankruptcy Discharge? (Arsenis v. Blue Cross)

Ignoring the issue? (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson A Petition for certiorari is before the U.S. Supreme Court in Speech & Language Center, LLC, and Chryssoula Marinos-Arsenis v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey (Case No. 21-1154, filed 2/16/2022). Petition’s Question The Question presented in the Petition is this: “Can parties... Continue Reading →

When “Unimpaired” =/= Pay In Full (In re Hertz)

Unimpaired (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By Donald L. Swanson Claims are “impaired,” unless the plan “leaves” their rights “unaltered.”  § 1124(1). This rule is not as simple and unequivocal as it seems, according to an In re Hertz opinion. [Fn. 1]   Here’s why. Plan Treatment of Unsecured Claims Claims of unsecured creditors in the Hertz bankruptcy... Continue Reading →

Which Deadline Controls A Post-Judgment Motion: 28 Days (Civ.P. 59) Or 14 Days (Bankr.P. 9023)? (Roy v. Canadian Pacific)

Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9023 & Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 By: Donald L Swanson Imagine this: a U.S. District Court enters judgment in a case that’s “related to” a bankruptcy, and we want to file a motion for new trial or to amend the judgment.  So, which deadline applies to the motion: 28 days under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); or14 days under Fed.R.Bankr.P.... Continue Reading →

Does A Subchapter V Trustee Have A Duty To “Monitor” Debtor’s Plan Compliance?

Monitoring? (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Question:  Does a Subchapter V trustee have a duty to “monitor” debtor’s compliance with a confirmed plan? Answer:  “No.” I’ll try to explain . . . and to add a suggestion on what Subchapter V trustees might do, instead. Consensual Confirmation When a plan is confirmed under... Continue Reading →

“Solvent Debtor Exception” For Post-Petition Interest On Unsecured Claims (In re Hertz)

A rate of flow (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By Donald L. Swanson The opinion is Wells Fargo Bank, Indenture Trustee v. The Hertz Corp. (In re The Hertz Corp), Adv. P. No. 21-50995, Delaware Bankruptcy Court (issued December 22, 2021, Doc. 28). The question is whether (and at what rate) post-petition interest can be recovered on... Continue Reading →

In re Fulton: Not The Last Word Under § 362(a) Or § 542(a)! (Cordova v. City of Chicago)

City of Chicago (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson The U.S. Supreme Court, in its Fulton v. City of Chicago opinion, let Chicago off the automatic stay hook for holding onto impounded vehicles owned by Chapter 13 debtors. But Fulton is not the last word on that subject. The new opinion is Cordova, et al. v. City of Chicago,... Continue Reading →

Involuntary + ABC + Voluntary [All For Same Debtor] = Stay & Transfer Orders (In re Aliera)

A lovely place to stay — oops, wrong “stay” (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson An “Order Staying the Later-Filed Bankruptcy Cases” is from In re The Aliera Companies Inc., Case No. 21-11548, Delaware Bankruptcy Court (issued January 18, 2022, Doc. 56), followed by an "Order Transferring Venue of the Later-Filed Voluntary Bankruptcy Cases"... Continue Reading →

How Alabama and North Carolina Defy The U.S. Constitution — And Get Away With It (US Trustee v. Bast Amron)

A disconnect? (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By Donald L. Swanson Every now and then, (i) something is blatantly obvious, but (ii) those in charge insist that what seems obvious is actually false.  Such a disconnect breeds distrust.   That’s precisely what exists in our bankruptcy system.  The U.S. Constitution requires that bankruptcy laws be “uniform .... Continue Reading →

“Engaged In” Eligibility Struggles: Chapter 12 And Subchapter V (In re Mongeau)

A farming operation? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson “Engaged in” eligibility for Chapter 12 (farming operations) and Subchapter V (commercial or business activities) are similar-but-separate things. An opinion by the Kansas Bankruptcy Court shows the difficulty in addressing the “engaged in” eligibility standards in Chapter 12—even when Subchapter V opinions are consulted as... Continue Reading →

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑