In In re Bodensiek,[1] a chapter 7 case involving an abandoned Florida homestead, the bankruptcy court addressed the issue of whether a debtor can strip[2] a wholly unsecured claim on account of a second mortgage on abandoned homestead property.

[1]When we last reported on In re Loop 76,[2] the case was on appeal with the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). In a lengthy decision that one could argue expanded the bankruptcy court’s ruling on classification, the BAP has since affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision permitting separate classification of unsecured deficiency claims.[3]

Two recent decisions have provided guidance concerning the scope of a lender’s right to collect “rents” generated by a debtor in possession, and the debtor’s corresponding ability to use those “rents” in furtherance of its restructuring efforts: In re Ocean Place Development LLC[1] and In re Soho 25 Retail LLC.

Although a wealth of case law has found pre-petition bans on bankruptcy filings to be unenforceable as a matter of public policy, a recent unpublished decision from the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) upheld a pre-petition ban included as an amendment to an operating agreement. [1] The debtor, DB Capital Holdings LLC, was