One might assume that an individual debtor who makes false statements to a creditor respecting his future ability and willingness to pay a debt could not file for bankruptcy and then discharge any associated debts—especially where the creditor relied on the debtor’s statements to its detriment. As the United States Supreme Court recently decided, however, a debtor may do just that if his false statements respecting his financial condition are not made in writing.

The Supreme Court held that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for purposes of determining the application of the exception to discharge set forth in Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling, 2018 WL 2465174 (June 4, 2018).

On May 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Court”) affirmed a district court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. that permitted a debtor to reject a midstream gathering agreement as an “executory contract.”1 The Court’s decision, which is the first Court of Appeals to address the rejection of a midstream gathering agreement, firmly establishes a debtor’s right to do so under certain circumstances.

BACKGROUND

Banks regularly enter into commercial relationships with their customers such as opening new depository accounts.  These relationships are often contractual in nature and seem relatively straightforward until an unexpected incident occurs that causes the relationship to unravel. What then are the duties owed by each party to each another?  The default rule seems to be that the terms and conditions that the parties agreed to at first govern the parties’ actions throughout their banking relationship.

In December 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 (TCJA). Effective as of Jan. 1, 2018, the TCJA is a wide-ranging change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Tax Code) affecting individual, corporate, and international taxation.

Lost amongst the many commentaries are two changes that have a negative impact on business debtors under the Bankruptcy Code: (1) reduction of the corporate tax rates and (2) elimination of the ability to carry back net operating losses.

Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that overdraft payments advanced by Banks which are later repaid by their customer constitute preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. In re Agriprocessors, Inc., involved a meat packing company which periodically overdrew its bank accounts, and the bank issued provisional credit to cover the overdrafts. The bank initially denominated those overdrafts as “intraday” overdrafts until the midnight settlement deadline, at which point they became “true” overdrafts.

Can a bankruptcy trustee recover a fraudulent transfer made six, eight, ten years ago? Bankruptcy courts around the country are answering that question with a resounding “yes”, so long as the IRS holds an unsecured claim against the debtor. If more courts arrive at this conclusion, creditors face the risk that trustees will step into the shoes of the IRS to borrow its ten-year statute of limitations for the recovery of fraudulent transfers.

The Bankruptcy Code provides bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditor committees with “avoidance powers” that allow them to set aside and recover certain transfers that a debtor made before filing for bankruptcy.[1]  These avoidance powers are, however, limited by a number of exceptions enumerated in the Bankruptcy Code, including the securities safe harbor at § 546(e).  Section 546(e) protects from avoidance any transfer “made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . .

On March 8, 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized certain changes to its mortgage servicing rules. The Bureau issued a final rule1 to provide mortgage servicers with more flexibility and certainty regarding requirements to communicate with borrowers under the CFPB’s 2016 mortgage servicing amendments. 

Background

On February 1, 2018, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia in In re: Kenneth R. Pierce found that the printed name on the debtor’s driver’s license was the name that was important for Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) security interest perfection purposes (No. 17–60154–EJC, 2018 WL 679677 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2018)).