“I did not want you to hear this on the news for the first time, but we are filing for bankruptcy next week.” “This is a difficult call to make. We are going out of business and will probably be filing a chapter 7 in the next couple of days.” Needless to say, bankruptcy is problematic for a licensor: the licensee may cease performing, the royalty stream may run dry, and the licensee or a trustee could attempt to sell or assign the license in bankruptcy to an undesirable licensee, or even a competitor.

A recent case out of the Eastern District of California addressed the split in authority on whether an inaccurate credit report alone is enough to establish a concrete injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing.

The automatic stay is a procedural tool in a bankruptcy case that effectively halts efforts by creditors to collect on a debtor’s outstanding obligations. As discussed in more detail in our prior post, immediately upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, a “bankruptcy estate” is created, which includes virtually all assets of the debtor.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 went into effect December 1, 2011. It was implemented to address a perceived problem in “cure and maintain” Chapter 13 cases (cases in which the debtor cures any pre-petition arrearage and maintains monthly post-petition payments on long-term loans) – that mortgage creditors were not providing the debtor with notice of post-petition payment changes and fees assessed post-petition, causing debtors to often exit a successful Chapter 13 with a delinquent loan.

Many creditors have been warned of the need to halt collection efforts once they are put on notice that a debtor has filed for bankruptcy. However, the “why” behind this warning, mainly the automatic stay, is often misunderstood or disregarded. Since violations of the automatic stay can have serious ramifications, it is crucial that creditors know what the automatic stay is, what it protects, and how to get relief from the stay so that the creditor can proceed with collection efforts.

What Is the Automatic Stay? What Does It Protect?

The Second Circuit’s August 2021 decision in In re Gravel, 6 F. 4th 503, has already received considerable attention and generated much debate over the last few months.

A few changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure became effective on December 1, 2021. The most noteworthy change relates to Bankruptcy Rule 9036, which addresses notice and service by electronic transmission.

A district court judge recently reversed and remanded a well-known bankruptcy decision discharging a significant student loan debt.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment entered in favor of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) in a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim brought by Henry Losch (“Losch”) finding not only that Losch had standing to bring the claims but also that Experian’s investigation of Losch’s credit reporting dispute was not “reasonable as a matter of law.” Losch v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d.b.a. Mr. Cooper, -- F. 3d. --, 2021 WL 1653016, *1 (11th Cir. April 28, 2021).

The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to dismiss a FCRA claim finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant did not have a “permissible purpose” to access the plaintiff’s credit report for collection of a mortgage debt that the plaintiff alleged was previously discharged in bankruptcy. In Andrea Billups v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, No. 19 C 7873, 2021 WL 1648114 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that the Defendant mortgage server violated 15 U.S.C.