The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s ruling that a lender failed to perfect its security interest because its UCC financing statement failed to provide sufficient indication of the secured collateral under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

In 1930, Clarence Bennett’s wealthy uncle died. He left behind shares in Berry Holding Company ("BHC") that were subdivided into three groups. Bennett was the beneficiary of dividends paid out of one of these groups and, for many years, received his share of dividends from BHC. In 1986, BHC became Berry Petroleum Company ("BPC"), a publicly traded company, and Bennett’s interest changed.

A New Jersey District Court recently addressed several issues in connection with the appointment of a future claims representative (“FCR”). In light of the recent increase in mass-tort bankruptcy cases, exploring these issues is timely.

Background

On October 10, 2019, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio (OHSB) entered General Order 30-2 implementing Complex Chapter 11 procedures. Under General Order 30-2, a case is eligible to be a complex case if (1) it is filed under Chapter 11 of the Code; (2) it is not filed by an individual debtor, as a single asset real estate case, or as a small business case as defined in § 101(51C) of the Code; and (3) the debt of the debtor or the aggregate debt of all affiliated debtors is at least $10 million or it involves a debtor with publicly traded debt or equity.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s judgment against a debtor who filed an adversary proceeding alleging that a creditor and its counsel violated the bankruptcy discharge by trying to collect a discharged debt, holding that the attorney could not be held in contempt because he lacked knowledge of the discharge, but the creditor could be held liable for the actions of its counsel under agency law.

In In re Fortin, 598 B.R. 689 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether a lender may enforce a mortgage despite the unenforceability of the underlying promissory note. The court held that a lender’s inability to collect on a note due to the expiration of the statute of limitation for enforcement of the note does not adversely affect enforcement of the mortgage so long as the debt remains unpaid.

We’re still a month away from Halloween, but TCPAWorld has just become even scarier.

I have frequently remarked on the unfairness of individual corporate officers being held individually and personally liable for TCPA violations committed by corporate entities. That sometimes means liability well into the millions of dollars in personal exposure for individuals based upon actions taken by companies these individuals helped run. Well imagine, for a moment, if all that exposure were deemed non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Horrifying right?

Congress recently passed and the President signed into law the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019. This Act will provide broader bankruptcy relief to individuals engaged in business with aggregate debts of $2,725,625 or less. This debt limit is subject to adjustment every three years.

The last several years have been treacherous for the retail sector. Changing shopping patterns and shifting demographics have led some commentators to declare that the (retail) apocalypse is upon us.

On August 23, 2019, President Trump signed H.R. 3311 into law. The goal of the Small Business Reorganization Act is to facilitate reorganization among small businesses. One of my fellow bloggers has provided a summary that you can read here.