The Supreme Court held that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for purposes of determining the application of the exception to discharge set forth in Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling, 2018 WL 2465174 (June 4, 2018).

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Mgmt. Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018), held that transfers made by and to entities that are not “financial institutions” or other covered entities fall outside of the scope of the § 546(e) safe harbor even if they are made through financial institutions or other covered entities. The Supreme Court’s decision resolves a circuit split over how the § 546(e) safe harbor applies to transactions involving conduit entities and could impact future disputes involving safe harbors under the Bankruptcy Code.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018), held that transfers made by or to entities that are not “financial institutions” or other covered entities fall outside the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e)’s “safe harbor” from a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code, even if those transfers are made through financial institutions or other covered entities.

bakerlaw.com 1 Financial Services 2017 Year-End Report 2 FINANCIAL SERVICES 2017 YEAR-END REPORT Table of Contents Introduction 3 Litigation 4 Industry Developments 5 Representative Matters 7 Emerging Issues and Trends 8 Lending 10 Industry Developments 11 Representative Matters 11 Emerging Issues and Trends 12 Regulatory, Compliance and Licensing 13 Industry Developments 14 Representative Matters 16 Emerging Issues and Trends 16 Restructuring 18 Industry Developments 19 Representative Matters 19 Emerging Issues and Trends 20 Conclusion and Contact Us 22 3 FINANCIAL SERVICES 2017 YEAR-END R

On March 20, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed Senate Bill 220 into law. The bill is designed to limit the ability of defendants in foreclosure proceedings to keep contesting the foreclosure after agreeing, in bankruptcy, to surrender the property to their lenders.

Some think that when you file for bankruptcy, you sell your proverbial soul to the devil.

While this view isn’t necessarily true, it does imply that bankruptcy is not an easy choice. It could mean short term relief, but it could also affect your self-image, reputation, and even future credit negatively. The experts at Allstate Law Center add that before making this choice, you should consider all factors and options.

Filing for bankruptcy is one of the most challenging experiences you can ever have. In fact, the things that happen before bankruptcy – calls from debt collectors, receiving garnishments, and the fear of losing your investments including your home and your car – can drive anyone to physical and mental exhaustion.

This week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), holding that a debt collector does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing an “obviously time-barred” proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding. This case should stem the tide of FDCPA lawsuits against debt collectors for efforts to collect potentially time-barred debts in bankruptcy proceedings.

On May 15, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) in which it held that filing an “obviously time-barred” proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that a Chapter 11 debtor could not avoid the payment of default interest under a promissory note as a condition to curing and reinstating such promissory note under a Chapter 11 plan. In Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.), 840 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that its prior rule of allowing a curing debtor to avoid a contractual post-default interest rate in a loan agreement—as decided in Great Western Bank & Trust v.