Editor’s Note: Our good colleagues at Willamette Management Associates were kind enough to feature a Bryan Cave Article in its Spring 2016 issue of Insights.  If you are a bankruptcy attorney, then no doubt at some point you have had to deal with the mind-numbing exercise of determining when IP contracts or licenses (or government contracts, remember West Electronics, folks?) can be assumed, or assumed and assigned, or neither.  This analysis can, in some circuits, result in a potentially huge loss of value to debtors and creditors, a la Sunterra.  Your editorial team at the Bankruptcy Cave is annoyed that this problem, and this circuit split, has existed for over 30 years; but we are relieved to have an up-to-date Bryan Cave article on this.  The article also includes a discussion of how the ABI Commission is planning to solve this problem.  The Insights article by can be found by clicking

On April 1, a bevy of dollar amounts set forth in the Bankruptcy Code will change. Some of these are quite important to substantive relief, and others are quite important to making sure you don’t look bad in front of the client or your favorite (least favorite?) judge. We have Section 104 of the Bankruptcy Code to thank for this malpractice-inducing enterprise, which we enjoy every three years. See 11 U.S.C. § 104 (a) (“On April 1, 1998, and at each 3-year interval ending on April 1 thereafter, each dollar amount in effect under sections . . . shall be adjusted . . . .”).

At some point in the careers of the contributors to The Bankruptcy Cave, we would love to speak to the legislative scribes who meticulously cross-referenced all of BAPCPA’s new dollar figures to Section 104, but still managed to give us the hanging paragraph

100-105 dumps

Over the summer, four appellate court decisions addressed the doctrine of equitable mootness: In re Tribune Media Co., 799 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2015); In re One2One Commc’ns, LLC, No. 13-3410, 2015 WL 4430302 (3d Cir. July 21, 2015); In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd., No. 14-11106, 2015 WL 5091909 (11th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015); and In re Transwest Resort Props., Inc., 801 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2015). These decisions indicate a trend away from the doctrine’s application, or at least the presumption that it should be determinative.

“‘Equitable mootness’ is a narrow doctrine by which an appellate court deems it prudent for practical reasons to forbear deciding an appeal when to grant the relief requested will undermine the finality and reliability

Read the article.

There has been a relatively recent uptick in plaintiffs’ counsel filing putative class actions in multiple state and federal courts for alleged violations of a debtor’s bankruptcy discharge injunction based upon the debtor’s receipt of post-discharge mortgage-related communications. These claims assert putative class action challenges to post-discharge communications alleged to be attempts at personal collection of the discharged mortgage debt.

Bankruptcy Code Section 524(j) expressly allows a secured creditor with a security interest in the debtor’s principal residence to communicate with the debtor in the ordinary course of business provided the creditor is seeking periodic payments associated with a valid security interest in lieu of pursuing in rem relief to enforce the lien. This section is under-developed in

On November 6, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York in Canandaigua Land Dev., LLC v. Cnty. of Ontario, ruled that an in rem tax foreclosure conducted by a county—in full compliance with Article 11 of the New York Real Property Tax Law—was capable of being set aside in bankruptcy as a constructively fraudulent transfer, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B).

The County had foreclosed on a real property tract, 642-732 pdfvalued at approximately $300,000 to $425,000, in order to satisfy a tax debt of $16,595. Further, the sale was conducted only a few hours after the debtor filed its Chapter 11 petition.  The debtor argued that the County’s foreclosure of its tax lien constituted a constructively fraudulent transfer because the debtor was rendered insolvent by the transfer and received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer of the

A Memorandum of Decision recently entered in In re 56 Walker, LLC, Case No. 13-11571 (ALG), Bankr. S.D.N.Y. (Mar. 25, 2014), provides clear guidance as to the effect of a state court decision granting summary judgment in favor of a secured lender in a foreclosure action prior to the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing.  The collateral estoppel, res judicata and Rooker-Feldman doctrines each separately served as grounds for the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that it was unable to review the prior state court decision.

In 56 Walker, the Debtor’s sole asset was a six-story mixed-use building in New York, New York. The property was pledged as security for a mortgage loan with Broadway Bank. The Debtor defaulted, and Broadway Bank commenced a foreclosure action against the Debtor in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. After a first chapter 11 case was dismissed, MB Financial Bank, N.A. (having acquired the loan

The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District has held that a borrower has standing to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure based on the alleged improper securitization of the borrower’s note and deed of trust. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2013). This is a minority view. Rejecting both the holding and reasoning of the Glaski court, and adopting the majority view, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California reached a contrary conclusion. Sandri v. Capital One, N.A., et al. (In re Sandri), No. 12-3165DM, 2013 WL 5925655 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2013).

I. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2013)

Factual Background and Procedural History:

In mid-2005, appellant Glaski obtained a purchase money loan from lender Washington Mutual Bank, FA