More than a year and a half has passed since the Bankruptcy Code was significantly revised pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) which became effective (with some exceptions) on October 17, 2005. While the full impact of BAPCPA will not be fully realized for years to come, it is already apparent that trade creditors stand to benefit significantly as a result of these amendments.

Expanded Administrative Expense and Reclamation Rights

On September 21, 2011, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director David Vladeck sent a letter to the court appointed consumer privacy ombudsman in the Borders Group, Inc. (Borders) bankruptcy proceeding advising against the sale of Border's customer information absent customer consent or significant restrictions on the transfer and use of the information.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently denied a debt collector’s motion for sanctions based on the plaintiff’s filing of allegedly frivolous consumer protection claims, which the plaintiff consumer voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after demand from the debt collector’s counsel, where the debt collector failed to show the claims met the Eleventh Circuit’s two-prong test for frivolity.

In April 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) was signed into law, representing the most extensive revisions to the bankruptcy code in 35 years. The BAPCPA was the product of more than a decade of legislative efforts. Its stated purpose was to curb perceived consumer abuse of the bankruptcy system. At the time of its enactment, many bankruptcy practitioners, judges and others questioned whether such a drastic change to the law was necessary and expressed concern about the impact the BAPCPA would have on consumers and the system as a whole.

On September 13, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) approved a final rule (the “Final Rules”) to be issued jointly by the FDIC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) intended to implement section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) which requires each non-bank financial company supervised by the Board and each bank holding company with assets of US$50 billion or more (each, a “Covered Company”)1 to report periodically to the Board, the FDIC and the Financial Stability Oversig

In its continued effort to implement its authority to resolve “covered financial companies” under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), on March 15, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) approved the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Implementing Certain Orderly Liquidation Authority Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Proposed Rules”).

The November/December 2007 issue of Insolvency Notes featured an article highlighting a Manhattan-based federal bankruptcy court's refusal to officially recognize proceedings commenced in the Cayman Islands to liquidate two Bear Stearns-managed hedge funds that collapsed in June of that year.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the “BAPCPA”) created an additional category of administrative expenses

I. Introduction.

Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“WSRCPA”) represents Congress’ attempt to address companies considered “too big to fail.” The statute creates a new “orderly liquidation authority” (“OLA”), which allows the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) to seize control of a financial company1 whose imminent collapse is determined to threaten the financial system as a whole. Commencement of a receivership under the OLA would preempt any proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code.