Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Analysis of Recent Real Estate Sector Bankruptcy Rulings
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.
Real Estate Sale Permitted Over Objection by Allegedly Undersecured Lender
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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?