Two decisions issued within a day of each other highlight the continuing debate over whether a time barred proof of claim violates the FDCPA and more importantly, whether the Bankruptcy Code preempts the FDCPA. As copycat cases continue to be filed, courts continue to resoundingly reject the rationale ofCrawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, a decision out of the Eleventh Circuit.
A recent decision from a United States Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Illinois provides a detailed analysis of why proofs of claim on “time-barred” debt do not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or the Bankruptcy Code. The decision, Glenn v. Cavalry Investments, LLC, is among the growing number of decisions rejecting Crawford v. LVNV from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida recently overruled a debtor's objection to a mortgagee's secured claim and denied the debtor's motion to determine secured status, holding that the issues should have been brought by adversary proceeding, and in any event neither Florida's statute of limitations nor its statute of repose barred enforcement of the note and mortgage. A copy of the opinion is attached.
For the past year, many involved in the debt buyer industry have closely followed the 11th Circuit’s ruling in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC. Last week, the bankruptcy court again dismissed the adversary proceeding. Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 08-30192-DHW, Adv. Pro. No. 12-030333-DHW (Sep.
When entrepreneurs decide to embark upon a new endeavor, they must first decide the form of entity to be used in conducting their business. Do they want to incorporate the business, and if so should they elect Subchapter S status? Would they be better served by forming a limited liability company, a limited liability partnership, or a general partnership? Each of these entities has its own beneficial characteristics when considering tax consequences, ease of operation, and potential liabilities of the individual entrepreneurs.
Recently, several courts across the country have considered whether filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the statute of limitations violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The increased attention on this issue was sparked by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit held that filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations violates the FDCPA.
The Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that Congoleum's pre-packaged bankruptcy plan settling asbestos claims is not enforceable against its insurers. The court found that the plan was unreasonable and that, under the terms of the plan, insurance obligations are not triggered because it was not shown that Congoleum was "legally obligated to pay" the claimants who would receive payments. Congoleum Corp. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. MID-L-8908-01 (N.J. Super. Ct. May 18, 2007).
The ability to borrow money during the course of a bankruptcy case is an important tool available to a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”). Often times, the debtor’s most logical choice for a lender is one with an existing pre-bankruptcy relationship with the debtor. As a condition to making new loans, however, lenders commonly require the debtor to waive its right to pursue avoidance or lender liability actions against the lender based upon pre-bankruptcy events.
Saddleback Valley Community Church v. El Toro Materials Company, Inc. 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22991 (October 1, 2007) Client Alert
In a decision that should provide comfort to landlords confronting insolvent tenants, the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that the Bankruptcy Code’s limitation on the amount of damages a landlord is entitled to recover upon termination of a lease does not limit the landlord’s right to recover damages which are not based upon the loss of future rental income.
The Bankruptcy Code limits the amount a landlord may recover from a bankrupt tenant for damages caused by the termination of a lease of real property. But what if the tenant trashes the landlord's property before turning over the premises? Does the damage limitation apply to the landlord's claim for the cost of cleaning up the mess?