The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, Chapter 183C of the General Laws of Massachusetts, is preempted by the high cost home loan provisions of the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) for federally chartered depository institutions. The July 27 ruling came in a case brought by Massachusetts residents who had jointly received a home mortgage loan from a national bank.
The head of the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Consumer Protection Bureau, David Vladeck, recently questioned the planned sale of email addresses and other information for about 48 million consumers by Borders Group, Inc. (“Borders”) as part of that entity’s bankruptcy proceeding.3 In a public letter, Mr. Vladeck noted that the data held by Borders included records of merchandise purchased (video and books) that could be perceived as personal by many customers.
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.
On September 13, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approved a final rule requiring certain financial institutions to prepare a plan for their dismantling in the event of material financial distress or failure.
Much attention in the commercial bankruptcy world has been devoted recently to judicial pronouncements concerning whether the practice of senior creditor class “gifting” to junior classes under a chapter 1 1 plan violates the Bankruptcy Code’s “absolute priority rule.” Comparatively little scrutiny, by contrast, has been directed toward significant developments in ongoing controversies in the courts regarding the absolute priority rule outside the realm of senior class gifting— namely, in connection with the “new value” exception to the rule and whether the rule was written out of the Bankr
October 17, 2006 marked the one year anniversary of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the "Reform Act"). The Reform Act has provided some much needed relief to commercial landlords, and the reported decisions of bankruptcy courts during the first year of the Reform Act confirm the effectiveness of the new landlord-friendly provisions.
One of the most significant considerations in a prospective chapter 11 debtor’s strategic pre-bankruptcy planning is the most favorable venue for the bankruptcy filing.
Breaking News
New Jersey Governor Names New Acting Attorney General
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.
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.