%1

Alleging that a debtor realized an ‘impossibly high’ rate of return in a Ponzi scheme isn’t enough to state a claim of nondischargeability for ‘actual fraud.’

Two North Carolina Courts have held within two months that the Bankruptcy Clause doesn’t demand ‘financial distress’ to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Fourth Circuit holds that attorneys’ fees and interest in pursuit of nondischargeable debts are themselves nondischargeable.

Baltimore district judge applies the Fourth Circuit’s ‘substantial and unanticipated’ test to modifications of chapter 11 plans.

Bankruptcy Judge Whitley says that a no-opt-out plan for a solvent debtor might violate creditors’ due process and jury trial rights.

The ‘new value’ offered by old equity in a chapter 11 plan was insufficient because it was only a small fraction of claims and because the dividend to creditors was also small.

In the Fourth Circuit, creditors are compensated when there is a ‘substantial improvement’ in a chapter 13 debtor’s financial condition.

The ‘broad’ definition of ‘claim’ by the Supreme Court in Johnson led Judge Huennekens to hold that in rem rights against a debtor’s property give rise to a ‘claim.’

The Fourth Circuit says that bankruptcy courts have broader jurisdiction than other federal courts and that some of their decisions are unreviewable by Article III courts.

The Fourth Circuit declined to follow the First and Sixth Circuits on preemption of automatic stay violations by expanding the ban to redress for discharge violations.