Little can be more frustrating to an association than when a non-compliant homeowner files for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy laws are complex, and navigating them can be a challenge even for the most sophisticated managers. One of the broadest protections for homeowners that file bankruptcy is the “automatic stay.” This provision of the bankruptcy code immediately halts all efforts to enforce any claim against the debtor that may affect the homeowner’s property, including collection of overdue assessments and non-compliance fees.
To make reorganization under Chapter 11 more accessible and cost-effective for small businesses, Congress passed the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”). The SBRA took effect on February 19, 2020, immediately prior to the world wide spread of COVID-19, the resulting stay at home orders, shuttering of businesses and unprecedented economic fallout.
According to the International Trademark Association (“INTA”), “whether a debtor-licensor can terminate a trademark license by rejection, thereby ‘taking back’ trademark rights it has licensed and precluding its licensee from using the trademark” is “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.” It likely will not stay unresolved for much longer; on October 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to resolve this specific issue as part of the Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC case.
On April 28, 2017, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 496, which limits the defense and indemnity obligations of design professionals who enter into contracts to perform design professional services on or after January 1, 2018. Existing law limits design professional defense and indemnity obligations for contracts entered into with public agencies to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional.
A unanimous state Supreme Court ruling affords foreclosed upon borrowers standing to bring suit by showing that there has been an invasion of his/her legally protected interests. In 2006, homeowner Tsvetana Yvanova borrowed money and executed a deed of trust on a residential property. The lender and beneficiary of the trust deed, New Century, filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and was liquidated in 2008. Yvanova claimed that the trust deed was illegally assigned to a bank in 2011, after New Century dissolved, and that the deed was improperly assigned to an investment trust.
On April 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied Defendants’ petition for certiorari in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, declining to take up the issue of whether liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., may be premised on the filing of a proof of claim in bankruptcy.
As previously reported, Judge Elias in Los Angeles had indicated an intention to bring to conclusion a long standing discussion with counsel regarding the extent of disclosure regarding asbestos bankruptcy trusts that plaintiffs will be obliged to provide when respon
The April 13, 2015 issue of Forbes magazine features a detailed article about the role product identification fraud played in the Garlock bankruptcy,In re Garlock Sealing Techs., LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C.
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles for many years now has handled a busy asbestos docket with numerous cases proceeding through trial and many more resolved before a verdict is rendered. The court handles cases brought by many prominent plaintiff firms with national presences. It is therefore interesting to see this court follow the lead of other courts and various legislative bodies in preparing to mandate greater transparency regarding claims made to bankruptcy trusts.
On October 16, 2014, U.S.