Publications

MORE →

Case Analysis: Hsu v. MTC Financial, Inc. (In re Hsu), 692 Fed.Appx. 888 (9th Cir. June 30, 2017), Insolvency e-Bulletin, Insol. L. Comm., Bus. L. Sec., Cal State Bar (November 30, 2017)

ILC-EBulletin:  Ninth Circuit rules that a CM/ECF outage did not excuse appellant’s failure to file a timely appeal or motion for reconsideration Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee, the following is a case update analyzing a recent case of interest: SUMMARY Each year, December 1 is the date on which new and amended federal rules and forms become effective.  Sometimes, this requires local bankruptcy courts to take automated systems offline.  That is again the case this year.  In the Central District of California, CM/ECF, PACER and certain other automated systems will not be available from 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2017, until 8:30 a.m. on Friday, December 1, 2017. The scheduled outage calls to mind the cautionary tale of Hsu v. MTC Financial, Inc. (In re Hsu), 692 Fed.Appx. 888 (9th Cir. June 30, 2017).  In that case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a scheduled CM/ECF outage...

READ MORE →
MORE →

Case Analysis: JPMCC 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging, LLC v. Transwest Resort Props., Inc. (In re Transwest Resort Props., Inc.), 881 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2018), Insolvency e-Bulletin, Insol. L. Comm., Bus. L. Sec., Cal State Bar (May 15, 2018)

Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee, the following is a case update analyzing a recent case of interest:   SUMMARY   In JPMCC 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging, LLC v. Transwest Resort Props., Inc. (In re Transwest Resort Props., Inc.), 881 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an election under section 1111(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code does not require that a chapter 11 plan contain full due-on-sale protections, and that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code applies on a “per plan” (not a “per debtor”) basis.  To read the full published decision, click here:  http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/01/25/16-16221.pdf.   FACTS   In 2010, a group of five entities (collectively the “Debtors”) filed for chapter 11.  The Debtors consisted of one parent company, two “Mezzanine Debtors” that were owned by the parent company, and two “Operating Debtors” that were each owned by one...

READ MORE →
MORE →

Revisions to the Federal Rules of Evidence and Appellate, Civil, and Bankruptcy Procedure Effective December 1, 2017, Insolvency e-Bulletin, Insol. L. Comm., Bus. L. Sec. Cal. State Bar (Nov. 29, 2017)

Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee: In April 2017, the Supreme Court submitted to Congress proposed revisions to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”), Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), and Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”).  The proposed revisions will go into effect on December 1, 2017, unless Congress rejects or defers the proposed amendments. The entire package of materials transmitted to Congress may be accessed here: http://bit.ly/2017-Rules.  Some of the proposed revisions are described below. Bankruptcy Rule 3002(a) – Secured creditors must now file proofs of claims Current FRBP 3002(a) generally provides that unsecured creditors and equity security holders must file proofs of claims. Under revised FRBP 3002(a), secured creditors must also file proofs of claims.  However, the revised rule also expressly states that “[a] lien that secures a claim against the debtor is not void due only to...

READ MORE →
MORE →

Case Analysis: Salven v. Galli (In re Pass), 553 B.R. 749 (9th Cir. BAP 2016), Insolvency e-Bulletin, Insol. L. Comm., Bus. L. Sec., Cal State Bar (September 11, 2017).

Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee, the following is a case update analyzing a recent case of interest: SUMMARY Last August, in Salven v. Galli ( In re Pass), 553 B.R. 749 (9th Cir. BAP 2016), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit held that, where a chapter 7 debtor and her non-debtor husband legally separated and divorced postpetition, the debtor’s ex-husband could, on his own behalf, claim a homestead exemption in property of the estate. To read the full published decision, click here: http://bit.ly/2utaP5P. FACTS In 2002, Frances Pass (“Pass”) and her then-husband, Aladino Galli (“Galli”), lived together in a home in Fresno, California (the “Fresno Property”). In 2002, they recorded a declaration of homestead (the “2002 Homestead Declaration”). At some point, Pass and Galli decided to terminate their marriage. In September 2009, Pass purchased a house in Coalinga, California (the “Coalinga Property”), and began...

READ MORE →
MORE →

Case Analysis: Blixseth v. Brown (In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC), 841 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2016), Ninth Circuit Decision Extending Barton Doctrine to Committees, Bankruptcy E-Bulletin, Insol. L. Comm., Bus. L. Sec., Cal. State Bar (June 13, 2017).

Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee,the following is a case update analyzing a recent case of interest: Summary In Blixseth v. Brown (In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC), 841 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether members of unsecured creditors’ committees can be sued outside of the bankruptcy court without bankruptcy court authority. The court determined that the Barton doctrine established in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881), which prevents suit against a trustee or receiver without the authorization of the appointing court, also applies to claims against a committee member relating to his or her conduct as a committee member. To read the full decision, click here: http://bit.ly/2jxLX7o. Facts Timothy Blixseth was the founder and principal, together with his wife, Edra, of Yellowstone Mountain Club, a luxury Montana resort. Stephen Brown represented Blixseth at the time Blixseth borrowed $375,000,000...

READ MORE →