Creditors and debt collectors may rest assured that they are not violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when sending debt-collection communications prior to any knowledge of a debtor’s bankruptcy filing. In Carrasquillo v.

In 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a final rule (“Rule”) that amends Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. part 1006, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). The Rule became effective on November 30, 2021. Because the FDCPA was implemented over four decades ago, the Rule is designed to interpret and further the goals of the FDCPA in present day. The Rule places additional restrictions on debt collection practices and addresses communications regarding debt collection.

Scope of the Rule

Overview

We all remember The Devil and Daniel Webster – the Devil comes to collect a seven year old debt (secured by Jabez Stone’s soul), only to be foiled by the great trial lawyer Daniel Webster – thanks to a skilled litigator, the old debt is forgiven!

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently held that a mortgage servicer did not violate the discharge injunction in 11 U.S.C. § 524 by sending the discharged borrowers monthly mortgage statements, delinquency notices, notices concerning hazard insurance, and a notice of intent to foreclose.

Moreover, because the borrowers based their claims for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., on the violation of the discharge injunction, the Court also dismissed their FDCPA claims with prejudice.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a debtor’s claims for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), holding the debtor’s failure to schedule his lawsuit as an asset of his bankruptcy estate deprived him of standing to later assert the claims.

In a 5-3 decision handed down on May 15, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is not violated when a debt collector files a proof of claim for a debt subject to the bar of an expired limitations period. The decision:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s demand seeking 10 percent interest that was not expressly authorized by the debt agreement did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or California’s equivalent Rosenthal Act, because the pre-judgment interest was permitted by state law.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.