Published on:

round-ups: 3rd, 5th, and 7th cir

LaSala v. Bordier et Cie, No. 06-4323
The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) is no impediment to federal adjudication of either: 1) state law aiding-and-abetting-breach-of-fiduciary duty claims, which have passed from a corporation to its bankruptcy estate to a trust; or 2) claims against foreign entities under foreign law for aiding and abetting money laundering brought by trustees, as assignees of individual investors in the bankrupt enterprise.

5th cir
Drive Fin. Servs., L.P. v. Jordan, No. 07-40265, 07-40266

An order amending and confirming debtors’ Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, which provided for interest on appellant-creditor’s secured claim on their pickup truck at a “prime-plus” interest rate, is affirmed where: 1) Congress did not supercede Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 124 S. Ct. 1951 (2004), when it passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA); 2) the Till plurality’s adoption of the prime-plus interest rate approach is binding precedent in cases presenting an essentially indistinguishable factual scenario; and 3) thus, the bankruptcy court properly rejected creditor’s objections to the interest rate.

7th cir
Airadigm Communications, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, No. 07-2212
In a suit by a bankrupt company seeking to eliminate the FCC’s continuing interest in several personal communications services licenses, the bankruptcy court’s determination that an earlier reorganization plan had not affected the FCC’s interests in the licenses and its ratification of a second plan with the FCC as a partially secured creditor are affirmed where: 1) the “default rule” for creditors’ liens did not apply since the earlier reorganization plan was silent on the issue of the licenses; 2) the “strong arm” provision of the bankruptcy code was inapplicable since federal law prevents another creditor from holding a interest in the licenses superior to that of the FCC; 3) the bankruptcy court properly treated the FCC as an undersecured creditor; and 4) the bankruptcy court did not exceed its authority in granting a limitation on a non-debtor’s liability.

Featured In