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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
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.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background
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.
When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?
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.