Peaje Investments LLC v. Garcia-Padilla

(United States First Circuit) – In consolidated appeals involving the application of certain provisions of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), 48 U.S.C. sections 2101-2241, a statute enacted by Congress in June 2016 to address Puerto Rico’s financial crisis, the district court’s judgment is: 1) affirmed as to denial of Peaje Investments LLC’s lift-stay motion where plaintiff failed to set forth a legally sufficient claim of ’cause’ to lift the PROMESA stay; and 2) vacated as to denial of other plaintiffs’ lift-stay motion where they presented sufficient allegations to entitle them to a hearing.

Lynch v. Gabriel Jackson

(United States Fourth Circuit) – In an action arising out of a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, the bankruptcy court’s denial of the Bankruptcy Administrator’s motion to dismiss the case as an abuse because the debtors used the National and Local Standard amounts for certain categories of expenses rather than the actual amount of their expenses, which were less than the standardized amounts, is affirmed where 11 U.S.C. section 707(b)(2) permits a debtor to take the full National and Local Standard amounts for a category of expenses if they incur an expense in that category.

Kupfer v. Salma

(United States Ninth Circuit) – In an action concerning the statutory cap on a landlord’s claims against a tenant in bankruptcy as set forth in § 502(b)(6), the district court is vacated and remanded when the court uses an all-or-nothing approach because the cap applies only to claims that result directly from the termination of a lease, but not to collateral claims.

Bates v. Citimortgage, Inc.

(United States First Circuit) – In an action filed by plaintiffs who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, in which their mortgage debt was discharged, and defendants foreclosed on their home, alleging that the IRS Form 1099-A plaintiffs’ received in the mail alerting them that the foreclosure might have tax consequences were a coercive attempt to collect on the mortgage debt that had been discharged, the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the Forms were not objectively coercive attempts to collect a debt.