Bankruptcy and class actions each establish elaborate procedures and provide a convenient forum to resolve numerous claims against one or more defendants, in an efficient manner. However, while a class action focuses on providing adequate representation to claimants with similar claims, bankruptcy focuses on enabling an insolvent company to reorganize. The two goals do not necessarily blend well in every circumstance.
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.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch (Rodriquez v. FDIC No 18-12690), the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (In reUnited Western Bancorp, Inc., 914 F. 3d 1262 (10th Cir, 2019)) that awarded a federal income tax refund of a failed bank to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver.
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.
Key Notes:
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.
Executive Summary
In any bankruptcy, there are inevitably winners and losers. The winners do not always do virtuous acts to win and the losers are not necessarily evil. Rather, dividing up a limited pie, the bankruptcy courts must leave some creditors short-changed. A good example is the recent 7th Circuit case involving a supplier and a lender. (hhgregg, Inc. et al. (Debtor). Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and GACP Finance Co., LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3363, February 11, 2020) |
In Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. (In re hhgregg, Inc.), No. 18-3363 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA“) created a federal priority rule rendering a secured lender’s first-priority, floating liens on inventory superior to the reclamation claims of a trade vendor. The facts in the case are typical, and the holding does not mark a demonstrative shift in common practice.
Facts
The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA“) is in effect as of yesterday, February 19, 2020. The SBRA was enacted to provide smaller business debtors with a more streamlined path to restructuring their debts. Below are some highlights of the new law.
Absolute-Priority Rule
The world of bankruptcy law has been divided into nine parts since the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 1978. But is that number fixed by nature? Could there be ten? That would be like discovering another planet! But that may happen.
We currently have nine chapters: