Almost five years after the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court recently ruled in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., et al v. United States that attorneys are “debt relief agencies” who are limited in their ability to provide pre-bankruptcy planning advice to consumers and obligating them to provide additional disclosures in their advertisements.

Attorneys Are Debt Relief Agencies Under BAPCPA

In Schwab v. Reilly, the United States Supreme Court recently reversed a decision from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the need for a bankruptcy trustee to lodge an objection to an exemption where the property is actually worth more than the amount claimed by the exemption. The Supreme Court took the opportunity in this case to also clarify its prior ruling in Taylor v.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a nonresident parent company may be subject to suit in Minnesota for damages claims against its insolvent Minnesota subsidiary company. The decision would appear to defeat a primary reason for forming a separate subsidiary business entity: the protection of related entities and their assets from potential liability arising from the business operations of the subsidiary.

On September 15, 2010, the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law voted 8-4 to report H.R. 4677 to the full House Judiciary Committee. Called the “Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act of 2010,” H.R. 4677 contains several substantial changes to federal law aimed at preserving workers’ wages and benefits during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The subcommittee members voted along party lines, indicating that the bill will have a difficult fight in the full committee – its fate may ultimately depend on the result of the recent election.

In October 2010, several important Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Court decisions were issued. This article summarizes those decisions.

The National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), et. al v. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, No. 09-6084, 09-6085 (8th Cir. BAP 10/8/10)

The current economic climate has led to an increasing number of bankruptcy filings. This article summarizes some important strategic considerations and initial steps that can be taken upon learning of such a filing by your customer or vendor in order to help minimize risks while maximizing your potential return in the bankruptcy.

Prompt Action and Verification of Bankruptcy

The Supreme Court’s 2010-2011 term began in October, and it is expected to conclude by the end of April. We have been monitoring the decisions of our nation’s highest court and you may have already read some of the summaries of the major decisions written by Larkin Hoffman attorneys. This update provides a brief look at some of the cases that have been scheduled for oral argument since our last update in November.

In the first opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court ruled that a Chapter 13 debtor may not deduct the “ownership costs” of a vehicle under the means test when he owes no further payments on the vehicle, affirming a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 8-1 opinion featured a pro-debtor dissent by Justice Scalia.

The latest numbers on bankruptcy filings in 2010 have been released, and 1.53 million Americans filed for bankruptcy protection last year, an increase of 9% over 2009’s figures. This number is the highest number of bankruptcy filings since the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) became law in 2005. In that year, 2 million Americans filed bankruptcy in order to file before BAPCPA’s restrictions on bankruptcy filings took effect.  

Most employers know that it is unlawful to terminate the employment of or to discriminate against an individual who has previously filed bankruptcy because of his or her status as a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. A recent Federal Court of Appeals decision, however, highlights the distinction between denying employment to an individual based on prior bankruptcy filing and terminating the individual’s employment because of it.