In an important decision for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit recently held that the proper “cramdown” valuation of a secured creditor’s collateral is its replacement value, regardless of whether the foreclosure value would generate a higher valuation of the collateral. The appellate court’s decision has the potential to significantly impact lenders that include certain types of restrictions on the use of the collateral (such as low income housing requirements) in their financing documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently concluded that Michigan’s assignment of rents statute sufficiently deprived the assignor of the ownership of the rents such that the rents could not be included in the assignor’s bankruptcy estate.

Part 1 of this blog series examined a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a debtor’s legal malpractice claims. See, Part 1. Recognizing that bankruptcy courts typically retain related to jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims against a debtor’s pre-petition counsel, this blog now turns to abstention considerations for a legal malpractice strategy.

Keystone Tube Company, LLC and four affiliates, including A.M. Castle & Co. (OTC: CASL), HY-Alloy Steels Company, Keystone Service, Inc. and Total Plastics, Inc., have filed chapter 11 petitions before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 17-11330). The debtors are a specialty metals distribution company.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of LIBOR-manipulation fraud claims brought by a group of hotel-related entities and their investor against a bank and two of its subsidiaries.

In so ruling, the Second Circuit held that:

(a) the borrower and related entities lacked standing to sue because they failed to list their potential claims in their bankruptcy case and the claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel; and

(b) the claims of the investor and guarantors were untimely and barred by the law of the case.

The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.

"The Parent Bank entered into this insurance contract with its eyes wide open and its wallet on its mind."

Over the past several years, non-recourse receivables financing has been embraced by many major financial institutions and non-bank investors in the US market. With its (i) favorable regulatory treatment for regulated institutions, (ii) perceived positive risk/reward profile and (iii) adaptability to recent technological advancements such as distributed ledger technology (i.e., blockchain), non-recourse receivables financing likely will grow increasingly popular in the US market.

What happens in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case when a creditor files a proof of claim involving a debt for which the statute of limitations to collect the debt has run? More specifically, does the filing of such a claim violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”)? That’s the issue considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson. 1

In November, members of our Bankruptcy & Creditors’ Rights group gave a presentation concerning the Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson case then pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recently decided the case, holding that a debt collector who files a claim that is “obviously” barred by the statute of limitations has not engaged in false, deceptive, misleading, unconscionable or unfair conduct and thus does not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Writing the opinion for the majority in favor of the debt collector, Justice Stephen G.