Val Loumber

Val Loumber brings over 23 years of singular legal experience

Val is grateful to have had the opportunity to work as staff attorney at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, with judges Jane McKeag (ret.), Michael S. McManus (ret.), and Fredrick Clement.  For nearly 16 years Val worked on numerous disputes brought before the court, preparing over 25,000 written dispositions, including thousands of dispositions in complex bankruptcy and business disputes.  Val also worked as staff attorney with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals BAP for several years, while Judge McManus served on that court.  For 10 years, while at the Bankruptcy Court, Val also taught bankruptcy law and practice to dozens of law students interning at the court.

From both his work at the federal judiciary and in private practice, Val has extensive experience in appeals, bankruptcy litigation, business litigation, complex federal civil procedure and litigation, creditor rights, insolvency, fraud, fraudulent conveyances, and other intentional torts.  In addition, Val regularly advises fellow attorneys on complex litigation cases.  Although Val does not generally practice consumer bankruptcy, he has intimate understanding of consumer bankruptcy law and practice from his experience while working at the federal judiciary.  From 2002 until 2005, when Val worked as an attorney at Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP (now FENNEMORE), he also gained substantial experience representing bankruptcy trustees in various proceedings.

Today, Val’s practice focuses on difficult litigation cases, business disputes, fraud, fraudulent conveyances, and asset protection.

Val also serves on the Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Program panel as a Resolution Advocate.  The judges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California have adopted the Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Program (BDRP), which allows participants to take advantage of and utilize a wide variety of alternative dispute resolution methods including but not limited to, mediation, negotiation, early neutral evaluation, and settlement facilitation.

Sample of Cases

• Fiberglass Representatives, Inc. v. Atkins (In re Atkins). Granting reconsideration of denial of sale of a real property to enforce a judgment, involving an entanglement of law of the case with a prior inconsistent judgment.
• J. Re-Bar Corp., Inc. v. United States (In re J.J. Re-Bar Corp., Inc.). Holding that the debtor’s chapter 11 plan does not trump the Anti-Injunction Act to enjoin the collection of trust fund recovery penalties against the debtor’s officers as responsible persons for unpaid employee withholding trust fund taxes; affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals BAP and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and reported at 420 B.R. 496 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) and 644 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011), correspondingly.
• In re City of Vallejo. Approval of chapter 9 plan (largest city municipality chapter 9 case at the time).
• In re City of Vallejo. Permitting the rejection of collective bargaining agreements by a chapter 9 debtor, upon satisfaction of the standard of Supreme Court’s Bildisco decision.
• In re Bauer. Granting in part sanctions for violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction. Affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals BAP and reported at 2010 WL 6452899.
• In re Saiyo. Sustaining an objection by the debtor to the $38 million proof of claim of a foreign creditor.
• In re Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association, Inc. Granting a summary judgment motion filed by an involuntary debtor.
• In re Matterhorn Group, Inc. Denying rejection of three collective bargaining agreements by the consolidated debtors (Matterhorn Group, Inc., Vitafreeze Frozen Confections, Inc., and Deluxe Ice Cream Company).
• In re Nordlund. Awarding sanctions against a creditor for violation of the discharge injunction.
• In re Cal State Growth Fund. Appointing a chapter 11 trustee for a debtor involved in a complex mortgage investment scheme.
• Hopper v. Showalter (In re Showalter). Sustaining chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s homestead exemption. Affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and reported at 2013 WL 1491003.
• Sihabouth v. The Bank of New York Mellon (In re Sihabouth). Dismissing adversary proceeding due to lack of post chapter 13 plan confirmation subject matter jurisdiction. Affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals BAP and reported at 2014 WL 2978550.
• The Golden 1 Credit Union v. Hopper (In re Ahrens). Sustaining the trustee’s objection to Golden 1’s deficiency unsecured proof of claim, with a vehicle as collateral, while the debtor was current with ongoing payments on account of the claim. Affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals BAP and reported at 2016 WL 6427279.
• In re te Velde. Applying judicial estoppel, among other grounds, to deny a $3.66 million administrative expense claim in a dairy chapter 11 case.