Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
[03/08]
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.
[03/08]
In Re: Ray
District court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two Chapter 11 proceedings was correct, but the decision is vacated, as the law firm lacked standing where there is no evidence that one of the law firm's former attorneys ever informed the bankruptcy court that it was appearing on behalf of the firm and the record is devoid of any mention of the firm by the attorney or any other party.
[02/19]
Miller v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
In bankruptcy trustee's adversary proceeding to avoid a creditor's mortgage lien, arising from a purchase of debtors' property with a recorded mortgage containing a technical defect, decision of the district court in favor of the creditor is affirmed as considering, inter alia, a 2008 Amendment that quickly clarified that a provision applied to all mortgages, the legislature likely intended the 2007 Amendment to apply to all mortgages, whenever filed.
[02/16]
US v. Edwards
Defendant's sentence and restitution order for bankruptcy fraud are affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel did not preclude the restitution order because, although compensation to defendant's victims was the general issue in a bankruptcy settlement, the issue was not identical to the issue in the criminal proceedings; and 2) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered defendant's history and circumstances.
[02/16]
American Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich
In an action to enforce a settlement agreement reached in bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss and to recuse the district judge is affirmed where the statements in the district court's opinions and in the transcripts manifestly did not demonstrate a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism, nor did they display a disposition so extreme as to render fair judgment impossible. However, the order enforcing the settlement agreement is reversed where the parties did not come to a meeting of the minds with respect to an essential term.
[02/15]
In re: Barner
In debtor's appeal from the bankruptcy court's ruling finding that an automatic stay did not apply to a foreclosure sale of her home, the order is affirmed where: 1) 11 U.S.C. sections 362(d)(4) and (b)(20) did not prohibit enforcement of a 2004 order lifting the automatic stay as to debtor's residence; and 2) the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not modify or affect orders issued in cases filed before its effective date.
[02/10]
In re: TransTexas Gas Corp.
In two related cases involving a bankrupt corporate debtor, rulings rejecting (i) a claim by corporate debtor's former CEO that the severance payments he received from the company were not fraudulent transfers, and (ii) a claim by a trustee in a related matter that the estate was covered under a policy issued by appellee-insurer, are affirmed where: 1) the severance payments made to the CEO after his dismissal were obligations incurred by debtor within two years of its petition date and thus constituted fraudulent transfers; 2) debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the payments to the CEO; and 3) the CEO's repayment of the amounts received did not constitute an insurable "Loss" under the insurance policy.
[10/23]
Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa
In plaintiff's case against defendant-debtor for purchase of a credit card debt that was discharged in bankruptcy proceedings, trial court's dismissal of the suit is reversed as the trial court abused its discretion in assessing sanctions against plaintiff as there was no evidence to support the findings underlying the sanctions.
More...
|
