Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Midland Funding v. Johnson and resolve the split in the circuits over whether the filing of a time barred proof of claim violates the FDCPA and whether the Bankruptcy Code preempts the FDCPA regarding proofs of claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a secured party’s foreclosure did not discharge an otherwise valid security interest in the proceeds of the collateral, nor did it preclude the creditor from pursuing its rights to such proceeds.

On October 14, 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking [USCBP–2016–0065] that, if adopted, would amend the CBP regulations to reflect that official notice of liquidation, suspension of liquidation, and extension of liquidation will be posted electronically on the CBP Web site.

On October 11, 2016, Chief Judge Brendan L. Shannon of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued a letter ruling in which he opined on the appropriate valuation of a first lien. A copy of the Opinion is available here.

(6th Cir. Oct. 12, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the creditor’s motion to reopen the case. The debtor’s ex-spouse filed the motion four years after the debtor received his discharge. The ex-spouse argued that an obligation arising out of their divorce proceedings should be declared non-dischargeable. The court holds the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Opinion below.

Per Curiam

Attorney for creditor: Aaron J. Scheinfield

A recent, and highly publicized, decision from the case formerly known as Sports Authority, In re TSA WD Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 16-10527 (MFW), Bankr. D. Del. (Docket #2863, Aug.

Lots of people and companies buy old debt—for example, hedge funds, private equity firms, and even some commercial bank affiliates. Typically, this is debt that the original creditor has charged off and sold for a fraction of the legal balance. In some cases, the debt has grown so old that a statute of limitations makes it technically unenforceable. But that doesn’t always stop the debt buyer from attempting collection.

A substantive non-consolidation opinion is a common feature of structured finance transactions in the U.S. Most, if not all, opine as to what a bankruptcy court would do, but express no opinion on the appellate process. We would venture a guess that most opinion recipients assume that if the bankruptcy court gets it wrong, their rights will be vindicated on appeal. The Eighth Circuit opinion in Opportunity Finance¹ casts a troubling shadow over that assumption.

Background

In a recent decision in In re Packaging Systems, LLC, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that a lender that held a “super-priority” administrative expense claim under section 364(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code was still entitled to its super-priority status even after the debtor’s case converted to chapter 7.

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.