“Once again, I’m not quite sure what that means.” – Bobby Boucher, The Waterboy

In Jenkins v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,^[1]the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that the filing of a proof of claim based on a time-barred debt cannot give rise to a claim for damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), reasoning that any such claim is precluded by the Bankruptcy Code’s comprehensive claims-allowance procedure.

The Friday, October 10, 2008, edition of The State newspaper (Columbia, South Carolina) carried an article about the possible Wells Fargo-Wachovia merger. The article stated the merger could cause “major job cuts.” In an economic downturn such as the current one, employees are going to suffer job losses. Any employment attorney will tell you that will result in more employment-related lawsuits being filed by former employees against their former employers. Any bankruptcy attorney will tell you that will result in increased bankruptcy filings.

As bankruptcy courts continue to play a key role in restructuring the U.S. economy, courts appear to be at odds as to whether WARN Act claims should proceed through adversary proceedings or through the bankruptcy claims process. While courts have come to differing conclusions on the issue, a commonality appears to be that generally courts will lean toward resolving WARN Act claims through whichever process is the most efficient in a particular case.

On March 10, 2015, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama issued a memorandum decision in the case of Harrelson v. DSS, Inc. (No. 14-mc-03675), declining to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court and holding that the existence of an arbitration agreement and a class action waiver in that arbitration agreement did not require substantial consideration of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Facts

“Bad news comes in threes.” “Third time’s the charm.” “Three strikes and you’re out.”

One of these three adages may come to characterize the outcome of a case of significant import argued before the US Supreme Court this week. The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif. The case is the third in a trilogy including Stern v. Marshall and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, which examine the scope of the constitutional exercise of judicial power by bankruptcy courts.

U.S.

The travails of Jefferson County, Alabama are well known.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently held that a mortgage servicer did not violate the discharge injunction in 11 U.S.C. § 524 by sending the discharged borrowers monthly mortgage statements, delinquency notices, notices concerning hazard insurance, and a notice of intent to foreclose.

Moreover, because the borrowers based their claims for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., on the violation of the discharge injunction, the Court also dismissed their FDCPA claims with prejudice.

On June 29, 2012, Judge Thomas B. Bennett of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that operating expenses as determined under Jefferson County’s sewer warrants indenture do not include (i) a reservation for depreciation, amortization or future expenditures or (ii) an estimate for professional fees and expenses and that the monies remaining in the sewer system’s revenue account after the payment of actual operating expense should be paid to the warrant holders in accordance with the Indenture.