“And it’s too late, baby now, it’s too late,Though we really did try to make it.”
- Carole King, It’s Too Late
Following the Eleventh Circuit’s decision last year in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the filing of a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy case pending in the Eleventh Circuit’s jurisdiction violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (“FDCPA”). But as the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama recently made clear in Gurganus v. Recovery Management Systems Corp. (In re Gurganus), No. 7:14-ap-70054-BGC, 2015 WL 65089 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Jan.
Mortgage lenders should be aware of the New Jersey statute of limitations on mortgage foreclosure complaints. In In re Washington, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 4649 (Bankr. D.N.J. Nov.
Any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer. Officers and directors of a selling entity also have concerns about this risk due to potential personal liability.
In Snyder v. California Insurance Guarantee Association, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, considered when the three-year statute of limitations for a cause of action against the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) accrues. The statute does not begin to run until a “covered claim” matures and is denied. CIGA’s denial in an answer to a complaint for declaratory relief did not satisfy this requirement.
The July 10, 2014 opinion by the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (Georgia, Florida, and Alabama) in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC held that the act of filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision could have an impact on providers attempting to work and collect old patient debts.
Creditors in bankruptcy cases may be interested in the July 10, 2014 Opinion issued by the Eleventh Circuit in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC.
On July 23, in ASARCO LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al. No. 13-1435 (10th Cir.), the Tenth Circuit rejected the notion that settlement requirements are different in the bankruptcy context. Section 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in three cases today: