In a case of first impression, the Fifth Circuit held that a defendant is not required to plead as an affirmative defense under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that it had complied with Section 1024.41 of the Code of Federal Regulations by responding properly to a borrower’s loss mitigation application. Germain v. US Bank National Association, — F. 3d — (2019 WL 146705, April 3, 2019). It affirmed the dismissal of the borrower’s RESPA claim on a summary judgment motion, based on the following facts.

In Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In re Reyes-Colon), Nos. 17-1971, 17-1972, 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019), the First Circuit recently ruled that “special circumstances” does not authorize a bankruptcy court to use its equitable powers to contravene the numerosity requirement for an involuntary petition under section 303(b)(1) of the Code. This twelve year dispute did not end well for the petitioning creditors.

Debtors who have filed for bankruptcy and received their Discharge often continue to receive collection letters and phone calls from their creditors. Some creditors even go so far as to sue on these discharged debts or garnish wages and bank accounts. Such actions may result in severe penalties, sanctions and damages. This article goes over the basics of the Bankruptcy Discharge and the importance of having measures in place to avoid violations.

What is the Bankruptcy Discharge?

The purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) is a powerful tool that enables lenders to take priority over the holders of prior perfected security interests that cover the same collateral. Those lenders seeking to obtain a PMSI often take great care to comply with the statutory perfection requirements. Yet, the notice requirements for a PMSI in inventory are every bit as important. A secured party that fails to comply with the PMSI notice requirements is likely to find its security interest subordinate to prior conflicting interests.

When a creditor is notified that a debtor has filed for bankruptcy, the creditor should be careful to determine whether it needs to file a Proof of Claim in the case to preserve its rights to receive payments from the bankrupt estate. This article goes over the importance of a creditor acting in a timely and proper fashion and preserving its rights in the bankruptcy process.

Cases Under Chapter 7 and 13

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on April 23, 2019, denied the litigation trustee’s motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint that would have asserted constructive fraudulent transfer claims against 5,000 Tribune Company (“Tribune”) shareholders. In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019). The safe harbor of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) barred the trustee’s proposed claims, held the court. Id., at * 12.

Last month, Congress reintroduced the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”), under which a new subchapter V would be added to chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. This new subchapter would provide small businesses with aggregate liabilities that do not exceed $2,566,050 with an opportunity to resolve outstanding liabilities through a streamlined and cost‑effective chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

Last year, a California Bankruptcy Court wiped out $10.2 million in default interest (“DRI”) when it ruled that a 5% DRI was an unenforceable penalty in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case where the construction lender fully recovered principal, interest, and other costs of collection.

A Georgia bankruptcy court on April 17 issued a significant ruling that breaks new ground concerning how future claimants’ representatives in asbestos bankruptcies (FCRs) are chosen. In In re The Fairbanks Co., Case No. 18-41768-PWB (Bankr. N.D. Ga.

In In re Argon Credit, LLC, 2019 WL 169315 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that, in accordance with section 510(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery concerning the senior lender’s claims.