On October 7, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed SB 616 into law. This new law, which goes into effect on September 1, 2020, includes changes to California law regarding garnishments.

In a non-precedential ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a district court decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant that was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published its quarterly consumer credit trends report on September 25. In the Report, the CFPB gave an in-depth look at bankruptcy trends and the impact of filing for the period 2001-2018, which includes the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) and the Great Recession.

View original on Law360: https://www.law360.com/articles/1173110/the-upside-of-the-fastest-chapter-11-confirmation-ever

On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.

By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.

On June 7, 2019, Judge Dennis Montali of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of California San Francisco Division found that FERC’s finding that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. bankruptcy court over wholesale power agreements was “unenforceable in bankruptcy court and of no force on the parties before it.” Judge Montali further noted that if necessary, the U.S. bankruptcy court will “enjoin FERC from perpetuating its attempt to exercise power it wholly lacks.” At issue, on review by the bankruptcy court, was whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

In Witt v. United Cos. Lending Corp. (“In re Witt”), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 13 debtors are not permitted to bifurcate undersecured home mortgage loans into separate secured and unsecured claims. In re Witt, 113 F.3d at 509. Recently, the Court overruled this twenty-two-year-old decision in an en banc opinion, Hurlburt v. Black, No. 17-2449, 2019 WL 2237966 (4th Cir. 2019).

In preparing a merchant cash advance (MCA) agreement on behalf of the provider, there is constant tension between the urge to include every conceivable contractual right for protecting the provider’s economic interests and the need to avoid language that might reorder the parties’ relationship in a way that renders the entire agreement unenforceable. Deciding how to address the possibility that the merchant might pursue bankruptcy poses a particularly challenging dilemma.

It is well settled that the purpose of filing a bankruptcy petition is to “give[] the honest but unfortunate debtor . . . a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt.” Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, (1934). A debtor’s discharge in bankruptcy, and the corresponding injunction provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, are the two primary elements that effectuate this financial fresh start.Chapman v. Bituminous Ins. Co. (In re Coho Res., Inc.), 345 F.3d 338, 342 (5th Cir. 2003).

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing circuit split regarding the impact of bankruptcy filings on trademark licenses. Until May 20th, brand owners in some jurisdictions could use bankruptcy protections to terminate the rights of third parties to use its licensed trademarks. Now, it is clear that a bankrupt licensor cannot rescind trademark license rights. Licensees can continue to do whatever their trademark licenses authorize, even if the licensor has filed for bankruptcy.