On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

On August 15, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued final guidelines, outlining the tiered approach it will use when evaluating the growing requests from fintech firms and cryptocurrency companies for access to master accounts.

On June 1, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released an invitation for comment on the DFPI’s regulatory approach to crypto asset-related financial products and services, as well as the potential regulation of such products and services under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL).

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

On July 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that private student loans are not explicitly exempt from a debtor’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge.

A bill introduced by Democratic U.S. senators looks to make it easier for Americans to discharge student loans and medical debt. If passed as currently written, the Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2021 would drastically change the U.S. bankruptcy system by removing certain procedural hurdles that make the bankruptcy process complex and by creating a clearer path to discharging debts that impact millions of Americans.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

On August 31, 2020, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado’s holding that certain student loans not guaranteed by a governmental unit may be discharged in bankruptcy.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background