On August 4, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued updated servicing rules to expand foreclosure protections for homeowners and struggling borrowers. The new measures include expanding consumer protections to surviving family members, clarifying borrower protections in servicing transfers, providing periodic statements to borrowers in bankruptcy, and requiring servicers to provide certain foreclosure protections more than once over the life of the loan, among other protections.

The operator of the Fox and Hound, Bailey’s Sports Grille and Champps Kitchen and Bar chains filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Wednesday, August 10th, listing debts that significantly exceeded assets.

Last Call Guarantor LLC and at least eight affiliates (“Debtors”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The filing constitutes the second bankruptcy filing for chain restaurants.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit recently held that a condominium unit owners association did not violate a debtor’s Chapter 7 discharge order by scheduling a sheriff’s sale to complete a prepetition foreclosure.

Rejecting the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the in rem foreclosure sale was scheduled to induce payment of discharged pre-petition condominium fees, the Sixth Circuit BAP noted that “all foreclosure litigation potentially can induce payments of discharged debt to avoid a foreclosure sale.”

In 1571, Parliament enacted a law, sometimes known as the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, creating one of the greatest means of creditor protection – the proscription of fraudulent transfers.

The Second Circuit’s recent opinion in The Matter of: Motors Liquidation Company, 2016 WL 3766237 (2^nd Cir. 2016) should give pause to all buyers of assets from bankruptcy estates.

In a pair of decisions in 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware determined that neither the first lien notes trustee nor the second lien notes trustee of Energy Future Intermediate Holdings Corp. (“EFIH”), a subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings (“EFH”), was entitled to receive a make-whole on the repayment of the corresponding indebtedness resulting from the acceleration of that debt in the EFH bankruptcy case.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit chimed in on whether time barred proofs of claim violate the FDCPA.In Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the Seventh Circuit affirmed three district court decisions which dismissed consumer’s FDCPA claims against debt buyers who filed time barred proofs of claim.Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Nos. 15-2044, 15-2082, 15-2109 (7^th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016).In doing so, the Seventh Circuit joins the Second and Eighth Circuits in siding against the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014).

Borrowers, agent banks, syndicate members and secondary market purchasers incur, syndicate, sell and buy bank debt on the assumption that bank debt is not a “security.” However, a June 30, 2016, opinion in the General Motors preference litigation¹shows that such an assumption may no longer be valid, at least under the Bankruptcy Code.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified the type of injury that must be alleged by a plaintiff suing under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision, in Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., is the first from the Eleventh Circuit applying the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Spokeo v. Robins.

Filing a proof of claim with a bankruptcy court representing a debt subject to an expired state law limitations period does not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) under an opinion released yesterday from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under the ruling, in Owens v. LVNV, the Seventh Circuit joins the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in rejecting the Eleventh Circuit’s holding under Crawford v. LVNV that such proofs of claim violate the FDCPA.