Blogs

By: Matthew W. Silverman

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In Shamus Holdings, LLC v. LBM Financial, LLC (In re Shamus Holdings, LLC),[1] the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the tolling provisions of section 108(c)[2] of the Bankruptcy Code preserved a mortgagee’s right to enforce an obsolete mortgage despite failing to seek an extension available under Massachusetts state law.[3] The Massachusetts statute required holders of a mortgage, on pain of forfeiture, to take action against the mortgagor within five years after the end of the mortgage’s stated term, but granted mortgagees the right to seek an extension of that five-year period.[4] Prior to the expiration of the five-year deadline, Shamus filed a chapter 11 petition.[5] After the five year statute of limitations had expired and without having sought an extension of that period, LBM Financial, the mortgagee, took action to enforce its mortgage, relying on the tolling provisions of section 108(c) to preserve its foreclosure rights. Shamus argued that LBM Financial’s failure to seek an extension rendered the mortgage time-barred,[6] but the First Circuit found LBM Financial’s right to enforce its mortgage protected by the tolling provision of section 108(c).[7]

By: Elizabeth Vanderlinde

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in In re Mueller[1] recently concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the debtor had the requisite mental state required to commit defalcation under section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate.[2] The debtor failed to make certain required fringe benefit contributions to the plaintiffs under certain collective bargaining agreements entered into in connection with three construction projects.[3] The plaintiffs claimed that the debtor's failure to make such contributions violated Wisconsin's theft by contract statute and supported a finding of defalcation.[4] By contrast, the debtor argued that his failure to pay was inadvertent and reflective of the problems arising in the contracted projects.[5]

 By Barry Z. Bazian

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In Smith v. Silverman (In re Smith),[1] the Second Circuit held that a bankruptcy trustee could not be held personally liable for deciding not to pursue the estate’s only potential sources of recovery. In Smith, the debtor, a former president of Meadow Mechanical Corp., filed two suits in 1990: a dissolution action against the corporation’s shareholders and an action to recover on a promissory note against the corporation.[2] These actions were unresolved and had been left dormant for several years when Smith filed for bankruptcy in 1997.[3] A trustee was appointed in the case, but he decided not to prosecute the actions.[4] The debtor moved to have the Bankruptcy Court compel the trustee to pursue the claims, but the court denied the motion based on the trustee’s assertion that litigating the claims would not be worth the expense.[5] Subsequently, the bankruptcy case was closed and the trustee was discharged.[6] Over a year later, the debtor brought a motion to re-open the bankruptcy case to pursue a cause of action against the trustee, alleging that the trustee breached his fiduciary duties by negligently failing to pursue the actions.[7] The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, and the District Court affirmed.[8]

By: Piergiorgio Maselli

St. John's Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In Lehman Bros. Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.),[1] the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a so-called “flip clause” in a swap agreement, which reordered the payment priorities in a collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) transaction,[2] was an unenforceable ipso facto[3] clause of the type that is not protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”).[4] Lehman and Ballyrock’s swap agreement[5] provided that in the event of a party’s default, the non-defaulting party was entitled to terminate the agreement and alter the priority of payments under the agreement.[6] Since bankruptcy was an element of default, Lehman’s bankruptcy filing triggered the flip clause and placed it below CDO noteholders in the “waterfall” of termination payments. The flip clause, if enforced, would have eliminated Lehman’s right to receive funds that it would have received if not for its bankruptcy, and thus Ballyrock claimed that Lehman’s bankruptcy filing effectively deprived it of its right to collect termination payments.[7]

By: Patrick McBurney

St. John's Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

            Affirming the decision of the bankruptcy court, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit in Pawtucket Credit Union v. Picchi (In re Picchi),[1] held that a debtor was allowed to modify a creditor’s secured mortgage in a multi-family dwelling because a multi-family house does not fall within section 101(13A)’s definition of a debtor’s principal residence.[2] Pawtucket, the secured creditor, held a second mortgage on the debtor’s two-family home.[3] The debtor, Picchi, resided in one of the units, and rented out the second unit.[4] Picchi’s chapter 13 plan reduced Pawtucket’s secured claim to zero because the appraised value of the property was insufficient to satisfy the secured claim of Picchi’s senior lender.[5] The bankruptcy court determined that Pawtucket’s claim could be modified by Picchi and approved the plan.[6]