In FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP,1 the Seventh Circuit recently held that transfers are not protected under the safe harbor of section 546(e) of the U.S.
In 2014 the Eleventh Circuit held that a debt collector violates the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act when it filed a proof of claim in a chapter 13 case on a debt that it knows to be time-barred. Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Circ. 2014).
Two recent cases serve as reminders the devil is truly in the details.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 29, 2016)
The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion to transfer venue of his chapter 7 bankruptcy case from the Terra Haute Division to the Evansville Division. The debtor failed to satisfy the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1412 for venue transfer. The debtor’s travel time to each court location was virtually the same, and thus Evansville was no more convenient than Terra Haute. Further, there was no showing that the interests of justice would be better served by the transfer. Opinion below.
Judge: Graham
The Missouri Commercial Receivership Act (MCRA), passed by the Missouri legislature and just signed into law by Governor Nixon, becomes effective Aug. 28, 2016. It expands, clarifies and fleshes out the existing minimal receivership statute. The MCRA (Sections 515.500 through 515.665 of MO Senate Bill No. 578) outlines a new standardized system for receivership administration under the auspices of the Missouri courts.
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Aug. 2, 2016)
Two United States courts recently issued decisions involving the scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe-harbor provision in section 546(e) related to avoidance actions. In one, in the Second Circuit, the court took a broad approach to protect the financial markets, whereas the Seventh Circuit interpreted that statute more narrowly. The Supreme Court is now well-positioned to bring greater clarity to this important area of law.
We’ve previously commented on this blog on a number of decisions (see: (i) Too Little, Too Late: Ninth Circuit Holds Confirmation Objection Insufficient to Revive Untimely Complaint Objecting to Dischargeability of Debt, (ii)
So, a ruling came out in June that we in The Bankruptcy Cave have been dying to blog about (and not just so we can use the blog title above). Forgive the delay – heavy workloads and summer vacations often preclude timely blog posts. But this one is a doozy, better late than never on this blog post.
A recent decision out of the Southern District of Georgia shows the collateral impact of the Crawfordv. LVNV Funding proof of claim decision issued by the Eleventh Circuit.