Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Continuing to provide analysis on distressed real estate cases, we decided to report on two cases that present different issues. One involves the debtor's sale of real estate over the objection of the secured lender, which was approved. The other involves a debtor's attempt to enjoin a construction bond company from continuing to pay claims by subcontractors after the filing of the bankruptcy case, which was denied.
|The first case is in In re Lee, Case No. 19-71337- JTL (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2024), where the debtor sought bankruptcy court approval of a sale of real property over the objection of a lender with an undisputed lien against the property. According to the opinion, the lender filed a proof of claim for $244,234.76, secured by the debtor's real property, which consisted of a home on 43 acres of land. The debtor proposed to sell 15 of the 43 acres to a third party for $265,000. The motion stated the lender's lien would attach to the proceeds of the sale, and the lender would retain its lien in the remaining 28 acres. The lender objected, claiming the amount owed by the debtor was $294,915.99.
The court began its analysis by noting that a debtor may sell property free and clear of interests pursuant to Section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code if any of the five subsections of Section 363(f)(1)-(5) are met. The only subsections at issue were 363(f)(3) and 363(f)(4). Section 363(f)(3) authorizes a sale free and clear of liens "only if such interest is a lien and the price at which such property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all liens on such property." See, 11 U.S.C. Section 363(f)(3). The lender argued that the sale price of the property — $265,000 — was less than the value of its lien — $294,915. The court ruled that the sale proceeds would satisfy the lender's lien because the proposed sale proceeds exceeded the amount of its filed proof of claim, and the lender had failed to provide evidence in support of the amounts it claimed it was owed. The court also found that the sale was authorized under Section 363(f)(4), which states that a sale may proceed free and clear of an interest that is in bona fide dispute. The debtor testified that the lender was owed only $241,976.23, and had filed an objection to the lender's proof of claim, disputing amounts charged for taxes, escrow payments, inspection fees and broker price options. The court found the lender's claim was in bona fide dispute.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
A novel legal self-help technique to secure artificial intelligence data and programs is known as Poisoning AI. This technique involves modifying the AI algorithm to intentionally produce specific erroneous results.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether purchasing market competitors’ search engine keyword terms, known as “conquesting,” constitutes trademark infringement.
The DOJ has proposed a rule that would regulate certain transactions involving bulk sensitive personal data. The rule would implement a complex regulatory framework, with civil and criminal enforcement, that is similar to sanctions and export licensing regimes. It also implicates federal cybersecurity requirements, government contracting and CFIUS actions.
The legal industry is at an inflection point, grappling with challenges that range from rising client demands to technological disruption. There are five critical areas where firms can take a proactive, strategic approach, including actionable insights and recommendations for navigating 2025 and beyond.
The Second Circuit’s decision is notable in that it signals a reversal of the recent trend of dismissals of VPPA claims in courts across the country and could trigger a significant increase in VPPA lawsuits. Although organizations have grappled with VPPA claims for several years, this decision is another red flag to organizations to take immediate steps and ensure compliance with privacy laws to mitigate the risks of VPPA claims.