Upon receiving notice of a debtor’s bankruptcy case, the prudent debt collector typically files a proof of claim, in the hope of receiving some distribution from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Absent a fraudulent claim by the debt collector, the Bankruptcy Code specifically provides for the filing of claims against the debtor’s estate. So how could a debt collector be sued for doing what the Code allows? It could happen if debts a collector actually holds are barred from enforcement under a state statute of limitations.
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).
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 23, 2016)
The bankruptcy court applies Kentucky’s borrowing statute, KRS § 413.320, to determine the applicable statute of limitations for the debtor’s defamation, breach of contract, and fraud claims. The court analyzes where each claim accrued and dismisses some but not all of the debtor’s claims. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Attorney for Debtor: Dann Law Firm, Brian D. Flick
Attorney for Defendants: Christopher M. Hill, John R. Wirthlin, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Patricia K. Burgess, Stephanie Smiley
In a much-anticipated follow-up to its 2014 decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 738 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that there is no irreconcilable conflict between the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Bankruptcy Code.
This briefing is the first in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing over the next fortnight.
The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know – part 1
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a limitation order (providing for the restoration to the register of a dissolved company, C, and the suspension of the limitation period during dissolution) and provided guidance on how judicial discretion should be exercised when making such an order.
Shortly before being placed into administration C entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement. C later went into liquidation; however, the purchase price in respect of the sale was not received before the company was dissolved, over four years later.
Key point
The Court has discretion to suspend time for the purposes of limitation periods when exercising its jurisdiction to restore a company to the register.
The facts
The former director of a dissolved company applied for an order restoring the company and, so that it could then bring claims against third parties that had expired, suspending the running of time during the period when it was dissolved.
The decision
Key point
Claimants should ensure that in foreign as well as UK insolvency procedures their claims are protected against limitation defences.
Facts
How deep is the “pool of facts in which it is permissible to fish for the basis of the new cause of action” if a party wishes to benefit from the ‘relation back’ doctrine when calculating limitation periods? The Court of Appeal gives guidance on the meaning of “the same or substantially the same facts” for the purpose of CPR r 17.4(2).
31/10/2016 Pensions Update October 2016 http://bakerxchange.com/rv/ff002b980788f142ab3974e23146b6f2e393d02b 1/4 Pensions Update October 2016 In this issue Court of Appeal clarifies treatment of pensions on bankruptcy PPF publishes consultation on 2017/2018 levy DWP consults on valuing pensions for the advice requirement Regulator declares rule change void Next steps in leaving the European Union Committee publishes new evidence on regulation of pension schemes Regulator launches blog Government cancels plans t