A recent Third Circuit reversal paves the way for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuits based on minor procedural mishaps in bankruptcy court. This contradicts the law in the Second and Ninth Circuits and in many district and bankruptcy courts that previously have found that participation in bankruptcy proceedings is not an attempt to collect a debt and thus not grounds for an FDCPA claim.   

My how time flies in protracted bankruptcy litigation. More than four years ago, as I reported back at the time, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case of Qimonda AG issued its first decision on the application of Section 365(n) in that case. After an initial appeal, a four-day trial on remand, and another appeal, last week the U.S.

In re American Roads LLC, et al., 496 B.R. 727 (S.D.N.Y. 2013

CASE SUMMARY

An ad hoc committee of bondholders who executed an agreement with a monoline insurer securing claims under an insured unitranche containing a “no action” clause, bargained away their right to appear in the debtor’s bankruptcy case and, therefore, lacked standing to object to the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.

FACTUAL  BACKGROUND

Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes ruled from the bench on December 3, 2013 (followed by a written opinion on December 5, 2013) that Detroit is eligible for bankruptcy protection, allowing the city to attempt to restructure $18.5 billion of debt. Thus begins the largest American municipal bankruptcy case. After nine days of trial, the judge ruled that although the city did not negotiate in good faith prior to bankruptcy, it was impossible for the city to do so.

The Third Circuit recently held that claims purchased from trade creditors by a claims trader will be disallowed under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when the seller of the claim received, and did not repay, a preference. In doing so, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressed its disagreement with a relatively recent decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which reached the opposite conclusion.

Due to inconsistent decisions in the Second Circuit and Third Circuit, there has been some uncertainty as to whether a purchaser of a bankruptcy claim is subject to defenses that a debtor would have against the original creditor. Recently, this issue was settled with respect to cases filed in the Third Circuit.

On November 15, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Glenn, J.) issued a lengthy decision¹ in the Chapter 11 case of Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”). An important holding contained in this decision is that the bankruptcy claims of holders of notes issued with original issue discount (or OID) for tax and accounting purposes in a “fair value” exchange (an exchange for notes with a lower face amount) need not be reduced by any unaccreted OID^.2  

A Michigan bankruptcy judge ruled yesterday that Detroit is eligible for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, overruling numerous objections filed by labor unions, pension funds and other interested parties.  Almost immediately following the ruling, a notice of appeal was filed by Counsel 25 of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”).

On 8 October 2013, the Supreme Court of Vietnam released the most recent draft of the new Law on Bankruptcy ("Draft Bankruptcy Law"). The Draft Bankruptcy Law is now open for comments and, once passed by the National Assembly, will replace the current Law on Bankruptcy 2004 ("Current Bankruptcy Law").

The Draft Bankruptcy Law appears generally to be a positive step in Vietnam's efforts to improve the efficiency of the bankruptcy process and efforts to enhance the credibility of the legal framework for restructuring.

Conduct of Bankruptcy Proceedings

CR&B Alert
Commercial Restructuring & Bankruptcy News
In This Issue:
• Consequences of the Failure of a Secured
Creditor to File a Timely Proof of Claim—2
• Private Equity Funds Potentially Liable for
Portfolio Company’s Unfunded Pension
Liability—2
• Make-Whole Payment Not ‘Unmatured
Interest’—3
• Tax Status of Q-Sub Debtor Not Estate
Property; Debtor Has No Standing to Challenge
Parent’s Sub-S Revocation—3
• Don’t Let Excess Insurers Avoid Coverage
Based on Settlements or Bankruptcy—4