By: Leslie M. Hyatt

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

 

Recently, in In re Egebjerg, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed, as abusive, a debtor’s chapter 7 petition because it found that the payments owed to the debtor’s 401(k) were not debt and thus, the debtor had excess disposable monthly income.[1] In 2004, the debtor borrowed money from his 401(k) to keep up with financial obligations and personal expenses. To repay the money owed to his 401(k), the debtor had his employer deduct $733.90 from his monthly paycheck. In 2006, the debtor had $31,000 in unsecured consumer debt and filed for chapter 7.[2]

 

By: Yana Knutson

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

 

The question of whether a debtor can obtain an exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 1146(a) from having to pay stamp or similar tax in a pre-confirmation asset transfer was decisively answered in the negative by the United States Supreme Court last year.[1] However, whether the exemption applies to a pre-confirmation sale that closed post-confirmation remains an issue with which courts must continue to struggle. 

By: Tracy Keeton

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

 

In the case of Tate v. Bolen (In re Tate),[1] the Fifth Circuit held that for the purposes of calculating monthly income deductions under the “means test,”[2] a chapter 7 debtor may deduct a transportation ownership expense for a vehicle that is not encumbered by any debt or lease. In January 2007, the Tates sought to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. After filing, they were subject to the “means test” added to the Code by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The purpose of the means test is to determine whether debtors have sufficient disposable income to repay a portion of their debt to creditors, which was at least $166.67 a month (or at least $10,000 over 5 years) at the time of the Tates’ bankruptcy filing, and if so, a chapter 7 proceeding is presumptively abusive.[3] 

 

By: Richard C. Solow

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

 

Determining exactly which parties have the right to request relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy has long been a challenging and contentious issue for the courts. Recently, in In re Jacobson,[1] the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington held that a “servicing agent” was not a “real party in interest” for the purpose of filing a section 362(d) motion, which when granted entitles a party to relief from an automatic stay. Substantiated evidence proving standing in bankruptcy court is necessary to allow parties to bring such motions. In denying UBS AG's (“UBS”) motion, the court upheld important notions of prudential standing, which require, even within the context of a federal bankruptcy forum, strict adherence and awareness of pertinent state requirements.[2]

By: Daniel J. Carollo

St. John’s Law Student

 

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in In re Energy Partner’s Ltd.[1] held that employment agreements for professionals and other agents in a bankruptcy re-organization under 11 U.S.C. § 328 are subject to a heightened reasonableness standard because once a fee is approved by the court it will not be subject to review absent unforeseeable circumstances.[2] Energy Partners Ltd., an offshore oil and gas exploration company, and its affiliates filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in May of 2009.[3] Two creditors committees appointed by the United States Trustee filed applications under section 328 requesting court approval to employ investment banking firms to provide two separate valuation reports on the bankrupt debtor corporation.[4] Each investment banking firm had requested a non-refundable fee of $500,000, plus various other administrative fees.[5] The court rejected the applications to employ the investment banks because the court determined that neither firm would provide a material benefit to the estate.[6]