Parkview Adventist Med. Center v. US

(United States First Circuit) – In an important case resting at the intersection of the Bankruptcy Code and Medicare law, involving the efforts of a medical center plaintiff which filed for bankruptcy to use the Bankruptcy Code to challenge the actions of Medicaid Services in terminating its Provider Agreement with plaintiff and declining to reimburse plaintiff for certain services provided after the effective date of that termination, the district court’s judgment that a) plaintiff’s claims arose under the Medicare statute and that the final sentence of 42 U.S.C. section 405(h) bars bankruptcy jurisdiction over such administratively unexhausted claims, and b) affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s holding that defendant had not violated the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(3), nor the non-discrimination provision, 11 U.S.C. section 525(a), are affirmed on narrower grounds evident from the record.

Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments Inc.

(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a Chapter 11 case, the bankruptcy court’s order confirming a debtor’s plan of reorganization, which proposed to cure the debtor’s default on a loan by a payment that reflected a pre-default interest rate and extinguished any other late penalties required under the loan agreement, is reversed and remanded where this rule of In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc., allowing a curing debtor to avoid a contractual post-default interest rate in a loan agreement, is no longer good law in light of later-enacted 11 U.S.C. section 1123(d), which provides that, if a plan proposes to cure a default, ‘the amount necessary to cure the default shall be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law.’

Spokane Law Enforcement Credit Union v. Barker

(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a Chapter 13 proceeding, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision to disallow a creditor’s late-filed claims is affirmed where: 1) if a creditor wishes to participate in the distribution of a debtor’s assets under a Chapter 13 plan, it must file a timely proof of claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002; and 2) the debtor’s acknowledgment of debt owed to the creditor in a bankruptcy schedule does not relieve the creditor of this affirmative duty.

Premier Capital, LLC v. Crawford

(United States First Circuit) – Bankruptcy Court’s denial of debtor’s Chapter 11 petition is affirmed where omitting an asset’s name but including the asset’s value on a Schedule B form does not clear the materiality threshold for a false oath claim under 11 U.S.C. section 727(a)(4)(A) because: 1) by omitting the existence of a cash balance plan (CBP), a creditor would not otherwise know of the plan’s existence; 2) creditors have a right to investigate the history of a debtor’s asset and if a debtor fails to disclose the existence of an asset, then a creditor may not be able to engage in due diligence.