On March 8, 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized certain changes to its mortgage servicing rules. The Bureau issued a final rule1 to provide mortgage servicers with more flexibility and certainty regarding requirements to communicate with borrowers under the CFPB’s 2016 mortgage servicing amendments. 

Background

Over the last twenty years, courts have increasingly insulated transactions from avoidance as fraudulent transfers by invoking the so-called “settlement payment” defense codified in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. The safe harbor has been interpreted in the Second and Third Circuits and elsewhere as precluding debtors, trustees and creditors committees from clawing back otherwise objectionable pre-bankruptcy transfers solely because the money at issue flowed through a bank or other financial institution.

Client Alert

Bellflower Funding, LLC and Wall 123, LLC, two affiliates of the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, have filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case Nos. 18-10507 & 18-10508).

Orexigen Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company focused on the treatment of obesity based in La Jolla, CA, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-10518). According to the Petition, as of November 30, 2017, Orexigen had $265.1 million in assets and $226.4 million in liabilities.

On March 8, the CFPB issued a final rule updating technical aspects of the upcoming periodic statement requirements for borrowers in bankruptcy under Regulation Z.

Last week, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.1 the Supreme Court settled a split in the circuit courts, unanimously holding that the safe harbor provision created by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), 11 U.S.C.

Under newly issued guidance, the IRS has made it easier for many tax-exempt organizations to restructure.

The IRS will now continue to recognize as exempt, those organizations that:

•             change their structure from an unincorporated association to a corporation;

•             reincorporate from one state to another;

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).

In September, we reported on the possible bankruptcy of Connecticut’s capital city and questioned whether anything short of a State-led bailout could save the City from its crippling deficit and mounting debt service payments. Recent news reports suggest that the State is finally ready to come to the rescue.