  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Although lender will likely become undersecured during the one-year period in which it will not receive payments under the modified plan, the lender's lien is not "totally destroyed" because the lender has received a significant portion of what it bargained for, plus interest.)
Cases Involving Related Statutes
U.S. v. Goldman, 447 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. May 19, 2006) (Attorney who submitted false and misleading testimony to bankruptcy court in context of client representation impeded bankruptcy proceedings in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1509 and was subject to sentencing enhancement by his virtue of having abused a position of public trust.)
In re Weber, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 1097077 (2d Cir. Apr. 13, 2007) (28 U.S.C. § 158(d), as amended by BAPCPA, authorizes circuit courts, in their discretion, to accept appeals of certain questions certified a bankruptcy court. The court declined to hear such an appeal in this case, however, because no conflicting decisions existed to create uncertainty in the bankruptcy courts given that all three courts in the circuit that had considered the question had reached the same conclusion.)
In re the Penn Traffic Co., 466 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. Oct. 4, 2006) (Second Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear the issue of whether post-petition performance can alter the executory nature of a contract, because the district court's order on this issue included a remand to the bankruptcy court for a factual determination, and thus the district court's order was not "final" and appealable pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 158(d).)
In re McKinney, 457 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. July 25, 2006) (BAPCPA provision allowing direct appeal from bankruptcy court to court of appeals if both courts agree to allow the appeal does not apply to cases pending before the effective date of the provision.)
28 U.S.C. 1334(b) Bankruptcy Jurisdiction
Edge Petroleum Operating Co. v. GPC Holdings, LLC (In re TXNB Internal Case), 483 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2007) (Federal subject matter jurisdiction extended to removed conversion action between non-debtor natural gas suppliers. Plaintiff sold gas to debtors, who then sold it to defendant. Defendant removed plaintiff's state court conversion action, and "related to" jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) because the outcome of the action could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate. Plaintiff was clearly entitled to payment from someone for the gas it sold, and if it was not defendant, then it was the debtors. If it was the defendant, then the defendant will have discharged a
