  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Recent cases involving claims issues include the following:
In re Colvin, 49 BCD P 286 (Bk. D. Idaho 2008) (post-Travelers action by debtor for breach of contract; debtor lost and defendant sought attorneys fees pursuant to a state statute (not contract); court held Travelers required the attorneys' fees issue to be decided by state law and awarded fees).
In re Polpular Club Plan, Inc., 395 B.R. 587 (Bk. D.N.H. 2008) (settlement of claim by debtor does not bar later preference claim; 502(d) simply gave the trustee a defense which was waived by the settlement but did not affirmatively bar the preference claim).
In re NVF Co., 2008 WL 4386608 (Bk. D. Del. 2008) (notwithstanding section 502(d)(3) which disallows claims for property taxes where the tax exceeds the estate's interest in the property, court granted taxing authority claim where property was abandoned because of environmental issues; court reasoned that the statute was designed to protect purchasers and unsecured creditors, and city had provided services and Congress had not intended to prevent localities from collecting taxes). It is hard to square this result with the statutory language.
Ladco Properties XVII v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2521273 (8th Cir. 2008) (borrower's liquidated damages deposit of 3% of loan proceeds for termination of loan was a fair estimate of actual damages, consistent with industry standards, and enforceable under N.C. law).
Litigation continues as to who is a known creditor entitled to notice to file a claim. In In re Arch Wireless, Inc., 534 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008), the debtor had a prepetition dispute with the customer, and claimed the customer owed it money. The customer had no notice of the bankruptcy and, after plan confirmation, the debtor terminated services. The customer brought a lawsuit on various tort and contract theories, and the debtor sought to sanction for contempt on the basis of the discharge injunction. The relief was denied by the bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The latter held that, notwithstanding the alleged billing dispute, the customer was a known creditor entitled to notice, and the customer's general awareness of the bankruptcy filing did not satisfy the notice requirement.
Section 502(d) disallows claims of recipients of avoidable transfers until they surrender the amount transferred. In In re Agri Dev. Corp., 387 B.R. 580 (BAP-8th Cir. 2008), the Court seems to hold that 502(d) requires the trustee to commence a proceeding under
©2009 Jonathan M. Landers
