I recently wrote about a decision from a federal district court in Alabama that sidestepped the Eleventh Circuit’s Crawford^[1]decision by finding that the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) were in irreconcilable conflict, and the FDCPA gave way to the Code on the question of whether the mere act of filing a proof of claim on a stale debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the FDCPA.^[2]

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District Court for the District of Delaware reversed and remanded the decision of the Bankruptcy Court which approved a Bankruptcy Rule 9019 settlement that Judge Stark concluded had been inadequately noticed under the circumstances.

As Seen in Law 360

It’s nothing new in 2015 to say that social media has become a valuable part of any company’s marketing and public relations strategy.  Companies now rely on sites like Facebook and Twitter to communicate with customers, advertise products, build brands, and shape public opinion.   Despite the obvious value such accounts provide, however, it is not always clear what rights, if any, a company may have in a social media accounts associated with its businesses or brands. 

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (“PACA”), as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499(a)et seq. provides federal statutory protection to certain qualifying sellers of perishable agricultural products. Congress amended PACA in 1984 to establish a statutory trust for the benefit of all unpaid suppliers or sellers of perishable agricultural commodities or products.  PACA defines perishable agricultural commodities as “fresh fruit and fresh vegetables of every kind and character,” whether or not frozen or packed in ice, and cherries in brine. 7 USC § 499(b).

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in LVNV Funding, LLC v. Crawford.  The Court's refusal to hearCrawford leaves a split in the circuits as to whether proofs of claim are subject to the FDCPA.

As we previewed last week, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently handed General Motors (“New GM”) an enormous victory that may end up shielding the company from up to $10 billion in successor liability claims.

Chief Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York decided that banks may not place an administrative freeze, even a temporary one, on the bank account of an individual who files for bankruptcy.

Parties to all legal proceedings - including bankruptcy proceedings - are entitled to Constitutionally protected due process rights, including reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. In the bankruptcy context, the debtor must give known creditors reasonable notice of certain critical events, including the sale of the debtor’s assets and the deadline to file claims against the debtor.

Providing an important reminder about the intersection of privacy promises and bankruptcy, the Texas Attorney General has filed an order to halt the sale of customer information in RadioShack’s bankruptcy.