In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit (the “Court”) considered the issue of asset “abandonment” in a Chapter 7 case[1]. The Court reversed the bankruptcy court’s decision to allow the Chapter 7 trustee to compromise a claim that the debtor argued the trustee had abandoned.

Background

On May 15, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-3) in favor of the debt collection industry, holding that the filing of a proof of claim against a chapter 13 debtor on a debt that cannot be enforced under state law because the statute of limitations on it has expired does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), because filing such a proof of claim is not a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation” or an “unfair or unconscionable” means for collecting a debt, as those terms are used in FDCPA.

Third party releases in a chapter 11 plan have become fairly common in the United States. A recent decision by the Delaware District Court in Opt-Out Lenders v. Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC (In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC), however, questions whether the bankruptcy court has the authority to approve nonconsensual third party releases as part of confirmation of a chapter 11 plan.

GulfMark Offshore, Inc., a provider of marine transportation services, primarily to the offshore energy industry, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

In our recent article, Jevic: Breathing New Life Into Priority Disputes, we discussed the then-pending motions for settlement and dismissal inIn re Constellation Enterprises LLC,et al.,16-bk- 11213 (CSS) (D. Del.). Constellation’s settlement motion proposed to transfer assets to the General Unsecured Creditor Trust over the claims of priority creditors and faced strong opposition in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Czyzewski et al., v. Jevic Holding Corp., et al., 137 S.

Debt collectors scored a win on Monday when the United States Supreme Court ruled that pursuing stale debt is not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).

The case of Midland Funding LLC v Aleida Johnson addressed an ongoing issue for creditors, debt collectors and consumers. As debts age, and are often sold, there remains a question of how far collectors may go to pursue payment on the debt.

In Millenium Lab Holdings, Delaware District Court Judge Leonard Stark, on an appeal from a bankruptcy court order confirming a plan of reorganization, recently upheld a challenge to the bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority to release claims against non-debtor third parties under the plan.

Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

On May 15, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) in which it held that filing an “obviously time-barred” proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment against the debtor holding the debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The plaintiffs inherited a judgment against the debtor that was based on the debtor’s theft of the decedent’s property. The plaintiffs were the proper parties to bring the claim, as the decedent’s estate assigned the judgment to them, and the requirements of § 523(a)(4) were satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Crain – Schuette Attorneys, Amanda Lisenby Blakeman