June 28, 2010
Circuit Court of Appeals Cases from Last Week
U.S. Supreme Court, June 17, 2010
Schwab v. Reilly, --- US --- (2010)(debtor gave “the value of [her] claimed exemption[s]” on Schedule C dollar amounts within the range the Code allows for what it defines as the “property claimed as exempt,” the trustee was not required to object to the exemptions in order to preserve the estate’s right to retain any value in the equipment beyond the value of the exempt interest)
1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2010
In re Nosek, --- F.3d --- (1st Cir. 2010)(In a creditor's appeal from a $250,000 sanction issued sua sponte by the bankruptcy court, the sanction is reduced to $5,000 where: 1)creditor's claim that it was the holder of the mortgage at issue was not a deliberate falsehood or intended in any way to mislead the court or debtor or achieve anything for creditor; and 2) the bankruptcy court did not identify any actual prejudice from the inaccurate claim of holder status)(Note: David Souter sat on the panel in this appeal)
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2010
SEC v. Byers, --- F.3d --- (2nd Cir 2010)(In nonparties' appeal from the district court's order holding that its jurisdiction in rem and its equitable powers provided it with sufficient authority to issue an injunction barring non-parties from filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions against any of the defendants, the order is affirmed where, while it should be sparsely exercised, district courts possess the authority and discretion to enter anti-litigation orders, including those that bar the filing of involuntary bankruptcy petitions absent the district court's permission)
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 09, 2010
In re Southern Cal. Sunbelt Developers, --- F.3d --- (9th Cir. 2010)(In actions seeking damages for filing of involuntary bankruptcy petitions against two alleged debtors, judgment for damages is affirmed in part where: 1) 11 U.S.C. section 303(i) permits an award of attorney's fees for a section 303 action as a whole, including fees incurred to litigate claims for fees and damages under section 303(i)(1) and (2); 2) section 303(i) permits an award of punitive damages under section 303(i)(2)(B) in the absence of an award of actual damages under section 303(i)(2)(A); and 3) award against two individual appellants jointly and severally liable for the costs and attorney's fees the debtors incurred in obtaining dismissal of the involuntary petitions is proper. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the bankruptcy court erred by holding the individual appellants liable for the debtors' costs and fees incurred on the section 303(i) motions themselves)
Thanks to Findlaw.com
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Circuit Court of Appeals Cases from Last Week:
In the 3rd Cir case 07-2360 - the Circuit stipulated that the FRAP Rules do not apply to District Ct appeals of Bankruptcy Orders (pg 7).
Just when you thought that was the only Circuit who went off the wagon - now the 2nd Cir. justifies assigned Judicial Immunity powers to a Receiver stating, arguendo, that a Receiver and BK case are one and the same.
There is no BK case on the planet a judge can Bar creditors from petitioning or pursuing due process; except in incongruous cases that argue one is denied standing as person aggrieved - that Article III rights are escheated in bankruptcy cases.
Has the whole American legal network gone nuts or is this a way for Judges to fight for more money - by stepping into the twilight Zone?
Posted by: Laser Haas | Jun 28, 2010 6:40:39 PM