A recent decision from a trial court sitting in Illinois calls into question whether debt collectors can rely on a widely used disclosure when collecting debt that may be subject to an expired limitations period.

A copy of the opinion in Richardson v. LVNV Funding, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that, following the confirmation of a foreclosure sale in Illinois, the only remedy available to a borrower under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 was damages, and therefore the one-year limitation period under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) applied and his claims were barred despite the fact that he provided rescission notices within three years of the loan closing, and despite the fact that the parties engaged in back-and-forth communications after the demands were first sent.

A Belgian diamond and precious metals trader, Exelco NV, has filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 15 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-12409). Exelco North America, Inc., along with three other American affiliates of Exelco NV, previously filed for Chapter 11 on September 27, 2017 (Lead Case No. 17-12029).

This is part of a series of articles discussing restructuring and insolvency related provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is now expected to become law this week (the “Act”).

Previously we discussed net operating losses (“NOLs”) and cancellation of the debt (“COD”). The provisions on NOLs have generally remained the same (adopting the Senate version of the revisions, but immediately capping the use of NOLs to 80% of taxable income). However, the changes to COD rules we discussed are not part of the current version of the Act.

Certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which became effective on December 1, 2017, impose affirmative obligations on secured creditors to protect the right to distribution in a bankruptcy case. Specifically, Rule 3002(a) now requires a secured creditor to file a proof of claim in order to gain allowance for a secured claim.

Bankruptcy courts lack the power to impose serious punitive sanctions, a federal district judge ruled recently in PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Sensenich, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207801 (D. Vt. Dec. 18, 2018). Judge Geoffrey Crawford reversed a bankruptcy judge’s ruling that had imposed sanctions against a creditor based on Rule 3002.1(i) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the bankruptcy court’s inherent authority, and Bankruptcy Code section 105.

The Bottom Line

This case should sufficiently concern private equity investors who extend secured credit, appoint a board member, are granted an option to purchase the business, and then foreclose and take over the business when the debtor–predictably–defaults.

As more and more states pass laws allowing the sale of marijuana, whether for medicinal or recreational purposes, investors will try to claim their share of what is certainly going to be a lucrative market. However, even in a growing market, private enterprises fail or need restructuring. This raises the question of whether distressed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

Following rulings from other appellate courts in other appellate districts, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court’s order involuntarily dismissing a mortgagee’s foreclosure against a borrower holding that the mortgagee’s witness from its current mortgage servicer laid a sufficient foundation at trial to admit business records from a prior mortgage servicer necessary to prove a default under Florida’s business records exception to hearsay.