A recent Third Circuit reversal paves the way for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuits based on minor procedural mishaps in bankruptcy court. This contradicts the law in the Second and Ninth Circuits and in many district and bankruptcy courts that previously have found that participation in bankruptcy proceedings is not an attempt to collect a debt and thus not grounds for an FDCPA claim.
Upon learning that its borrower has filed a case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a secured lender may decide not to participate in that case. The lender may want to ignore the bankruptcy case in order to avoid the expense of retaining bankruptcy counsel, or, relying on the general rule that liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected, may simply prefer to wait until the chapter 11 case ends and then enforce its lien. In a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Acceptance Loan Company, Incorporated v.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code offers a strong defense for holders of bonds, notes and other securities to preference and fraudulent transfer actions brought in bankruptcy proceedings. Essentially, any payment made to settle or complete a securities transaction, including repurchases and redemptions of bonds, notes and debentures, is protected from avoidance under the Bankruptcy Code. For many years, however, this powerful defense was rarely used. When the defense was raised, it was usually in the context of protecting payments made in leveraged buy-outs.
Can a secured creditor decide not to participate in a bankruptcy proceeding and thereby avoid any impact the bankruptcy may have on its lien? According to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in S. White Transp., Inc. v. Acceptance Loan Co., 2013 WL 3983343 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013), the answer appears to be that at least in the Fifth Circuit, the secured creditor can avoid the impact a bankruptcy plan has on its lien by simply declining to participate in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Over the last two decades, many companies faced with excessive asbestos-related liabilities have successfully emerged from bankruptcy with the help of section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, which channels all asbestos-related liabilities of the reorganized company to a newly formed personal injury trust. The injunctive relief codified in section 524(g) is modeled on the channeling injunction first crafted in the bankruptcy case of Johns-Manville Corporation, once the world’s largest producer of asbestos-containing products.
In drafting the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to nonresidential real property, Congress intended commercial landlords to be “entitled to significant safeguards.”1 Examples of the protections afforded to commercial landlords include requiring a debtor to remain current in its payment of post-petition rent;2 allowing landlords to drawdown on a letter of credit without prior bankruptcy court approval;3 permitting landlords to setoff pre-petition unpaid rent against a security deposit and/or lease rejection damages;4 recognizing that a tenant’s possessory rights in nonresident
On August 8, 2013, the Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) Restructuring Agreement closed, following the denial of the last relevant appeal of the trial court’s Order of Liquidation and Approval of the Restructuring Agreement in May 2013.
Last month’s decision out of the Delaware District Court in Woolery, et al. v.
The long ELNY saga continues, at least for the time being, with two recent developments.
In a ruling on February 28, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois reversed the February 29, 2012 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois allowing a bankruptcy trustee to avoid an Illinois mortgage as to unsecured creditors for lack of “constructive notice” because the mortgage did not expressly state the maturity date of and interest rate on the underlying debt (In Re Crane, Case 12-2146, U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. IL, February 28, 2013).