Exculpation provisions in operating agreements must be carefully crafted in order to protect members, managers, directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duties. In In re Simplexity, LLC, the Chapter 7 trustee sued the former officers and directors (who were also members and/or managers) for failing to act to preserve going concern value and exposing the debtors to WARN Act claims. The defendants argued the exculpation language in the operating agreements shielded against breach of fiduciary duty liability.

Part 1 of this blog series examined a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a debtor’s legal malpractice claims. See, Part 1. Recognizing that bankruptcy courts typically retain related to jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims against a debtor’s pre-petition counsel, this blog now turns to abstention considerations for a legal malpractice strategy.

The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.

TRANSACTIONAL

LITIGATION/CONTROVERSY

June 8, 2017

Bankruptcy Alert

Insolvency at Its Limits: What Management and Creditors of Insolvent LLCs and LPs Should Know About Fiduciary Duties Waivers and Standing, Inside and Outside of Bankruptcy

By Isley M. Gostin, Craig Goldblatt and George W. Shuster, Jr.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the filing of a proof of claim in bankruptcy proceedings with respect to time-barred debt is not a “false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable” act within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) when there continues to be a right to repayment after the expiration of the limitations period under applicable state law. The Court’s decision in Midland Funding, LLC v.

This week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), holding that a debt collector does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing an “obviously time-barred” proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding. This case should stem the tide of FDCPA lawsuits against debt collectors for efforts to collect potentially time-barred debts in bankruptcy proceedings.

In a 5-3 decision written by Justice Stephen G.

Federal appeals courts have been split on whether filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy on old debt, or obligations that have expired under a statute of limitations, violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In a victory for debt collectors and the debt buying industry, the Supreme Court clarified this issue on May 15, 2017 with its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348.

Twenty years of straight-line growth for e-commerce and online shopping has created fortunes for technology investors, savings for consumers and vast efficiencies for a new and constantly evolving ecosystem of suppliers and supply chains. Traditional brick-and-mortar outlets (and the retail chains that own

them) are struggling to adapt to this new dimension of competition. The

relationship between e-commerce and traditional retail activity seems to have

reached a tipping point in the United States. 

The number of consumer claims filed since the Great Recession has skyrocketed. These claims include alleged violations of an “alphabet soup” of federal and state consumer protection statutes. These statutes allow prevailing plaintiffs to recover some combination of actual damages, statutory damages, and even attorney’s fees. They also present a minimal risk of liability for defense costs if the plaintiff does not prevail, which makes these types of claims enticing for plaintiffs’ attorneys.