The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the denial of bankruptcy discharge for a Chapter 7 debtor due to the debtor’s failure to keep adequate records.

In particular, the Eighth Circuit focused on a sudden and financially significant return of hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of high-end watches and jewelry that left significant unanswered questions as to the whereabouts of the assets and the legitimacy of the creditor jeweler’s claim.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense to a preference action under § 547(c) applied to a creditor bank that released its liens for less than full payment.

In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit BAP held that the bankruptcy trustee could not recover two of the three payments that the debtor made to the bank during the 90-day pre-petition preference period.

We have previously written about the effects of COVID-19 on the way we currently work, as well as how businesses need to adapt to protect their trade secrets, customer goodwill, and other interests. In ordinary times, emergency injunctive relief is often the first resort for a business after discovering its trade secrets were stolen or customer relationships are at risk.

On March 31, 2020, the Rhode Island Superior Court announced the creation of its COVID-19 Receivership Program. The Program establishes a unique non-liquidating receivership calendar intended to assist Rhode Island businesses that are unable to pay their debts as they become due as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The Program is designed to give struggling businesses time to obtain emergency funding under the CARES Act or other source, to resume paying its ongoing obligations under Court supervision, and repay its prepetition debt.

During challenging economic times, Bankruptcy Courts serve an essential governmental and financial function. The COVID-19 outbreak has forced closures of businesses and governmental entities throughout the country, resulting in a cascade of financial distress across virtually every economic sector. The nation’s courts have not been immune from disruptions. Nearly all State Courts and Federal District Courts in major metropolitan areas have suspended non-emergency civil proceedings.

Seyfarth Synopsis: As OEMs confront the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on an already changing automotive industry, one significant issue will be the inevitable financial challenges that many dealers will face. Financially distressed or, worse, bankrupt dealers, create serious issues for manufacturers and affiliated lenders, including negative publicity, dissatisfied customers, limited or shuttered operations, out-of-trust sales, and litigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected a loan servicer’s appeal from a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling to remand to the lower bankruptcy court a punitive damages award for alleged discharge violations.

In so ruling, the Court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction regarding the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling as to the punitive damages award, but affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s denial of the debtors’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that a debtor alleged a plausible claim against a mortgage loan servicer under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the servicer’s proof of claim filed after obtaining a foreclosure judgment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

A copy of the opinion in Shaw v. Bank of America is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that — despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements — the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.