Lenders should be aware of a recent Bankruptcy Court decision that barred a lender from obtaining certain costs when it did not comply with a notice requirement in a mortgage.

On June 5, 2014 the United States Bankruptcy Court in In re Demers, BR 13-11539, 2014 WL 2620961 (Bankr. D.R.I. June 5, 2014) ruled that it is inequitable to shift the costs of a creditor’s error in proceeding with the foreclosure process to the debtor when the creditor sent an unspecific and unclear notice and consequently was not entitled to proceed.

Mortgage litigators often face a variety of bankruptcy issues. There are three main chapters of bankruptcy that affect the average mortgage litigator: Chapter 7, Chapter 13 and Chapter 11. Upon the filing of Chapter 7, Chapter 13 and Chapter 11 by a borrower, the bankruptcy code provides for a bankruptcy automatic stay. The automatic stay provides that all judicial or administrative proceedings or actions against a borrower must immediately stop. This includes all foreclosure actions, eviction actions and general state court litigation against a borrower.

In Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit became the first federal circuit court of appeals to hold that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy case violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).[1] See No. 13-12389,__ F.3d __, 2014 WL 3361226 (11th Cir.

A creditor who settles with a debtor during a bankruptcy case must be sure to continue following the case during the plan stage, or risk the plan affecting the creditor’s rights against third parties.  Iberiabank learned that lesson the hard way, after a plan was confirmed in the chapter 11 case of FFS Data, Inc.

When a bank holding company files a chapter 11 case, a key factor to the success of the case will be whether the debtor previously made any commitment to a federal depository institution regulatory agency, such as the FDIC, to maintain the capital of the debtor’s bank subsidiary.  This is because section 365(o) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the debtor is deemed to have assumed such obligations, and any claim for subsequent breach of these obligations is entitled to priority under section 507(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The FDIC often demands

This is the third post in our Bitcoin Bankruptcy series on the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.  In the spring of this year, the shutdown of Japanese bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox made us think about what might have happened if Mt.

One of the most dramatic tools a lender can use in the collection of a loan is the involuntary bankruptcy case.  It is dramatic because of the implications for both the debtor and the lender who files the case.

In my last post I discussed the Meridian Sunrise Village v. NB Distressed Debt Investment Fund Ltd. opinion handed down by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in March of this year.

On June 17, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Dallas granted recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code of the bankruptcy proceeding in Japan of failed bitcoin exchange, Mt Gox. Mt. Gox shut down after claiming to lose over $500 million (at current values) of customers’ bitcoins, some of which were later located. Mt Gox sought chapter 15 protection in the United States to prevent U.S.

One of the more effective risk-mitigation legal tools used by  senior real estate lenders is the single purpose entity borrower.  Among other things, having a single purpose, bankruptcy  remote borrower makes avoiding the risks of bankruptcy easier.  Even in bankruptcy, if the borrower is truly single purpose, and it  keeps the universe of creditors small, the senior secured lender  will have an easier time defeating any plan of reorganization  proposed by the borrower because it will control all of the  legitimate classes of creditors by virtue of th