Recently, several courts across the country have considered whether filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the statute of limitations violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The increased attention on this issue was sparked by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit held that filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations violates the FDCPA. After the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, many other courts have decided the issue, and the results of these cases have been mixed. Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri weighed in, and it found that there was no violation of the FDCPA. Dunaway v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 14-04132-drd, Adv. No. 14-4132, Doc. 29 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. May 19, 2015).
I recently wrote about a decision from a federal district court in Alabama that sidestepped the Eleventh Circuit’s Crawford 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.
In a 2014 decision rued by debt collectors everywhere, the Eleventh Circuit in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) ruled that filing a proof of claim to collect a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
The North Carolina Supreme Court recently analyzed whether a loan officer owes a borrower a fiduciary duty in a home mortgage transaction. Dallaire v. Bank of Am., ___N.C.___, 747 S.E.2d 535 (2013), decided June 12, 2014, No. 51PA13. Jacques and Fernande Dallaire (“Borrowers”) purchased a home as their primary residence in 1998. Seven years later they filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy due to unrelated business debts.
Remember when I wrote a glowing column about a Master Development and Supply Agreement Apple and its lawyers drafted? It was one of the most-read posts I’ve written, so I bet a good number of you do. Since the post was so popular, and since there have been some, well, we’ll say “unanticipated consequences” for Apple, I thought it warranted some follow up.
This post comes to you based on a story by the always-excellent Matt Levine of BloombergView. Evidently Apple loaned a company called GT Advanced Technologies a bunch of money so GTAT could develop and supply Apple with sapphire screens for a long time. Anyway, there may have been a default under part of that agreement, and GTAT filed for bankruptcy protection because that default was going to ruin everything (at least according to industry speculation).
In recent installments of the Manufacturer’s Corner, we have discussed how to protect yourself from insolvent customers and how your shipping terms can expose you to unexpected risk. Thanks to the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, we can explore how those two issues play together.
It’s unfortunate, but it happens: you reach a deal with your customer and prepare to perform your side of the agreement, only to discover that your buyer is insolvent or close to it. It is essential that you having a working knowledge your rights in this situation, because time is of the essence.
The case of Simon v. FIA Card, Services, N.A., recently decided by the Third Circuit, demonstrates the potential for conflicts between the Bankruptcy Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and emphasizes that banks should approach bankruptcy debtors with caution.