(California Court of Appeal) – In a suit alleging defendants defrauded her of hundreds of thousands of dollars after her husband died, the trial court’s entry of judgment based on terminating sanctions against plaintiff and entry of monetary sanctions against plaintiff and her attorney are reversed where plaintiff did not sue former bankruptcy debtor in this action for fraud and related claims, but rather his business partners, and principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply to insulate defendants from answering for what plaintiff claims are their fraudulent activities.
(United States Fourth Circuit) – In a case where the rate of interest on the debtors’ residential mortgage loan was increased upon default, the District Court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where a “cure” under section 1322(b) of the Bankruptcy Code does not allow their bankruptcy plan to bring post-petition payments back down to the initial rate of interest, as a change to the interest rate on a residential mortgage loan is a “modification” barred by the terms of section 1322(b)(2).
(United States Third Circuit) – In a bankruptcy proceeding, in which a party asserted maritime liens on debtor’s goods then in its possession, the district court’s judgment, that certain contractual modifications to those liens were unenforceable, is reversed where the modifications were enforceable as to goods then in possession.
(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a bankruptcy action, arising after debtor’s publicly-financed affordable housing project collapsed, the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the chapter 11 reorganization plan is reversed where the value of creditor First Southern National Bank’s secured interest in real property should not be reduced by the impact of the affordable housing restrictions after the debtor has exercised the ‘cram down’ option under 11 U.S.C. section 1325(a)(5)(B).
(United States Second Circuit) – In a bankruptcy action, brought by unsecured creditors of Chapter 11 debtor Tribune Company, the district court’s dismissal of the creditors’ state law, constructive fraudulent conveyance claims is affirmed where: 1) the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision does not bar the creditors’ action where the debtor’s confirmed reorganization plan has freed them from the Code’s restrictions; but 2) creditors’ claims are preempted by Bankruptcy Code section 546(e).
(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a bankruptcy action, the Ninth Circuit bankruptcy appellate panel’s (BAP) denial of petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus is vacated where the BAP is not a ‘court established by Act of Congress’ under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1651(a) and thus lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.
(United States First Circuit) – In a Bankruptcy debtor’s appeal, the bankruptcy court’s decision to permit a creditor to file an unsecured claim after the initial statutory ninety-day deadline from the date of the initial creditors’ meeting had passed is affirmed where the deadline fell in a period between the case’s dismissal and subsequent reinstatement, the bankruptcy court reset the deadline to account for the time the case was dismissed and accepted creditor’s claim as timely.
(United States Fourth Circuit) – In a lender liability action, brought by plaintiff against defendant Wells Fargo following default on an interest-rate-swap transaction previously satisfied in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the district court’s dismissal is affirmed where the prior bankruptcy proceedings preclude the present suit on res judicata grounds.
(United States First Circuit) – In an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding, the bankruptcy court’s decision, which found defendant qualified to join with two other creditors also holding non-contingent, undisputed claims to force plaintiff into an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding, is affirmed where a claim to payment defendant holds against plaintiff “is not contingent as to liability or the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount” within the meaning of section 303(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. section 303(b)(1).
(United States Second Circuit) – In a commercial action concerning payment for purchased fuel bunkers for plaintiff’s ships, the district court’s preliminary injunction, barring suit against plaintiffs to enforce maritime liens and attach the three vessel at issue, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute; but 2) the preliminary injunction is overbroad and is remanded for a determination of the proper scope.