Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC</i></b>
Filing a proof of claim against a bankruptcy estate for a debt the creditor knows is legally unenforceable pursuant to the statute of limitations is unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, or misleading to a consumer under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 1692 et seq., held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1844, 191 L. Ed. 2d 724 (2015).
The debtor alleged that the creditor's filing of a proof of claim on a time-barred debt used false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of the debt (15 USC ' 1692e), and used unfair or unconscionable means to collect or even attempt to collect the debt (15 USC ' 1692f). Applying the least sophisticated consumer standard, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court and held that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt created a misleading impression that such debt was enforceable. The appeals court likened the filing the proof of claim to filing a stale action in state court, reasoning that in bankruptcy, the least sophisticated consumer may not know how limitations can be used as a basis to object to a proof of claim. Additionally, the court noted the problem of the automatic allowance, the reduction of payments to other creditors, and the waste of the trustee's and the court's time and resources.
Since the Supreme Court's denial of LVNV's petition for writ of certiorari, bankruptcy courts have grappled with the limits of the Crawford decision. Looking only at the way Crawford is being interpreted at the bankruptcy court level, the opinion has raised a number of fundamental questions regarding preclusion, the meaning of “debt collection” and “consumer” within the FDCPA context, and the treatment of debt across different jurisdictions.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?