Successor liability is a catchall term for a group of legal theories that, in certain circumstances, allow a creditor to recover amounts owed by its obligor from a person or entity who succeeds to the assets or business of that obligor. Typically, claimants cannot pursue successor liability against a purchaser in a bankruptcy sale because most sales are made "free and clear" of such claims under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, there are some limited exceptions to this general rule.
Though controversial, cannabis[1] has steadily grown into a booming industry. Despite this rapid growth and the legalization of cannabis in numerous states[2], cannabis is still classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
In April, we discussed how Colorado’s state supreme court issued its highly anticipated decision confirming a borrower’s bankruptcy discharge does not accelerate secured installment debt or trigger the final statute of limitations period to recover the debt.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida created a three-factor test to help determine the ownership interests of social media accounts. The court in In re Vital Pharm[1] found that (1) documented property interests, (2) control over access, and (3) use, each play a role in establishing ownership over social media accounts.
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indiansv. Coughlin after the First Circuit barred the Lac du Flambeau Band from seeking to collect on a $1,600 debt obligation to the tribe’s lending arm, Lendgreen, after the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Colorado just became the latest state to recognize that a borrower’s bankruptcy discharge does not accelerate secured installment debt or trigger the final statute of limitations period to recover the debt.
The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Lac du Flambeau Band) found support from law professors specializing in federal Indian law as well as an assemblage of tribes and Native American groups in its bid before the U.S. Supreme Court to assert sovereign immunity from suit regarding alleged violations of the automatic stay. While they acknowledge that tribal immunity may be abrogated, they insist Congress must do so expressly and unequivocally.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes a debtor from discharging a debt obtained by fraud, regardless of the debtor’s own culpability. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, issued February 22, the Court concluded that “§ 523(a)(2)(A) turns on how the money was obtained, not who committed fraud to obtain it.”
On January 19, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an order sanctioning a collections law firm for violating the bankruptcy discharge injunction. The court in Skaggs v. Gooch (In re Skaggs) awarded the debtor $25,000 in attorneys’ fees based on a letter he received concerning a discharged debt.
On January 9, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own 39-year-old precedent to find that: (1) the definition of “transfer” for purposes of section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code depends on federal, not state, law; and (2) the date of “transfer” is the time at which the money passes to the creditor’s control.