When a defaulted borrower files a bankruptcy petition, two important events occur: (1) a bankruptcy “estate” comprised of certain assets of the debtor is created; and (2) all collection efforts (and pending litigation) against the debtor or its assets are automatically stayed. Accordingly, the court’s determination of whether items are or are not property of the debtor and of the bankruptcy estate is of critical importance to the creditor’s ability to collect on its debt.

Accept an unpalatable offer, or reject it and risk getting much less (or even nothing)? This is the choice stakeholders in chapter 11 bankruptcies increasingly face as a result of the proliferation of “deathtrap” provisions in plans of reorganization. For example, a class of bondholders may be forced to decide between accepting 60 cents on the dollar if they vote to accept a plan, or 40 cents if they reject. A class of equityholders may have to decide between accepting equity warrants, or rejecting and getting nothing.

On October 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the matter of Johnson v. Midland Funding LLC, on appeal from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in order to resolve whether a conflict exists between the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Bankruptcy Code. In Midland Funding, the appellate court found a debt collector to have violated the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim on time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued yet another suite of regulatory changes related to mortgage servicing. The rules add additional protections for borrowers—and therefore increased requirements for servicers—as well as clarify certain issues that have been the subject of questions and confusion by servicers.

Final Servicing Rule

Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code prohibits a bankruptcy trustee from avoiding “settlement payment[s]”, or payments “made in connection with a securities contract,” that are “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” qualifying financial entities, including financial institutions, stockbrokers, commodities brokers and others.

July Interest Rates for GRATs, Sales to Defective Grantor Trusts, Intra-Family Loans and Split Interest Charitable Trusts

Showtime and Top Rank Slug It out over "Fight of the Century"

Who said boxing was dead?

Fight fans still bitter over the May 2015 Floyd Mayweather–Manny Pacquiao bout that was far more mega-bore than mega-brawl may at long last get the slugfest they have been waiting for. A couple of small caveats: Mayweather has ceded the spotlight to his home television network, Pacquiao to his promotion company, and the boxing ring to a courtroom.

Michigan Court Rule 2.622 (the “Receivership Rule”) governs the appointment of receivers. The Receivership Rule was amended in 2014 to provide more explicit guidance on what courts and attorneys should consider when nominating a receiver. Specifically, the 2014 amendments addressed concerns that trial courts were disregarding qualified nominations made by the parties to the litigation in favor of judicial discretion in appointing a disinterested party to maintain the receivership estate.

A Supreme Court ruling this week should give creditors a powerful tool to collect their debts from debtors who try to transfer assets before seeking bankruptcy protection. The primary reason an individual may turn to personal bankruptcy is to protect assets from creditor collection while obtaining a “discharge” from debts. Such protection is increasingly necessary where an individual is being pursued by one or more creditors, particularly where those creditors may have obtained (or are about to obtain) judgments against the individual.

Customer information has become an increasingly valuable business asset.  And, the volume and detail of other available information about consumers has increased along with it, well beyond mere customer names and addresses to preferences, purchasing history, and online activity.  This means that when a business is sold, customer information is often sold along with it.  But careful diligence is required in handling this intangible asset, and the recent settlement in the RadioShack bankruptcy case is instructive.