Right to Repossess Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Determined by State Law, 7th Circuit Says

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that the question of whether a repossession company has a right to possess the property at the time of seizure must be determined by state law under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FRCPA").  Richards v. PAR, Inc., 954 F.3d 965 (7^th Cir. 2020).

In this case, the appellant, namely Nicole Richards, defaulted on her automobile loan.  Appellee PAR, Inc. was hired to repossess the car but subcontracted to a towing company, which attempted to repossess the car.  Richards protested and demanded that they leave her property. The towing company called the police, who handcuffed Richards until the car was towed.

While admitting that there was a valid lien and default, Richards sued PAR and the towing company in district court for trespass and replevin under Indiana state law and for violations of the FDCPA.  The court granted summary judgment in favor of PAR and the towing company and held that any alleged improper conduct is independently a matter of state law such that the FDCPA is not an appropriate enforcement mechanism.

But Richards appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that her complaint alleged a plausible claim under the FDCPA.  The FDCPA broadly governs debt collection practices and sets forth certain prohibited acts, including prohibiting debt collectors from taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property if there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest.

The FDCPA des not define “present right to possession.”  The district court found that the repossessors had a present right to possession because there was a valid security interest (a lien against the automobile).  But the Seventh Circuit found this to be in error because state law determines whether there is a present right to possess property.  Moreover, Indiana law permits nonjudicial repossession only if the process does not breach the peace.  

Here, a breach of peace could have occurred once Richards protested and demanded that the repossessors leave her property.  Accordingly, Richards’ allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the FDCPA and to survive summary judgment.  Likewise, it is important to note that California law permits a secured creditor to repossess collateral only if it can be done without breach of the peace.  Cal. Com. Code § 9609.

New Bankruptcy Provisions Offer Relief to Small Businesses

No one could have appreciated the timeliness of the enactment of Subchapter V of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, effective February 19, 2020 and known as the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), as modified by CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act)  to increase the debt ceiling for eligibility to $7,500,000 (for one year only). For many businesses it will prove to be a lifeline to survival.

Chapter 13 has always been admired by small businesses and their lawyers because it offers individuals a way to restructure debt (1) without the necessity of obtaining creditor approval (i.e. no balloting or voting) and (2) by paying unsecured creditors no more than three years’ projected disposable income.  A limitation on the use of Chapter 13 is that it is limited to individuals with unsecured debt of not more than $394,725 (plus secured debt of not more than $1,184,200).

The new law allows the small business, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, to restructure debt of up to $7,500,000 (secured and unsecured taken together) by pledging to pay to creditors projected disposable income (defined as income received by the debtor that is not reasonably necessary for (a) support of the debtor and dependents, and (b) necessary business expenses) over a three-year period.

Two revolutionary features: the first is that creditor approval of the plan is not necessary, therefore eliminating the need for costly and time-consuming disclosure statement and solicitation of creditor votes—the hallmark of the traditional Chapter 11 case; secondly, The Absolute Priority Rule, which prohibits the company from retaining its business operations without paying creditors in full (unless creditors agree), is inapplicable in the Subchapter V case. The debtor can confirm its plan without the votes of creditors and without the support of an impaired class. (As with Chapter 11, creditors must receive an amount equal to liquidation value of debtor’s assets.)  Competing plans are not allowed; nor is there a disclosure statement requirement—limited disclosures are made in the plan

Significant provisions:

Opt-in election: there have been small business provisions in place in chapter 11 for several years. Those provisions continue, but do not contain the revolutionary features of SBRA, which requires an opt-in at the time of filing the chapter 11 petition; failure to elect Subchapter five treatment defaults the Small Business Chapter 11 case into one under the existing small business debtor rules. One therefore needs to distinguish whether a “small business case“ is the new Subchapter 5 created by SBRA or the former, Because both types of cases will run in tangent through the courts. A small business case under the former law is referred to as a “small business case,” whereas cases for which the new procedure is elected will be called “cases under Subchapter V of chapter 11.”

Considerations: Why would a business choose not to elect given the attractive features of subchapter V? There are two main reasons:  firstly, the business is not ready for a fast-track procedure and needs the much longer 300 day time period of the non-elective small business case to file its plan. Examples of such a situation are where the debtor is forced to file Chapter 11 either because of an imminent foreclosure or and unforeseen catastrophe like a sudden business reversal or a large judgment in a case it was not expecting to lose, and other situations where it needs bankruptcy relief but simply does not have an exit strategy.          

Subchapter V trustee: The second reason to avoid Subchapter V is that the business either does not care for, nor can it support, a trustee, albeit one with limited powers. The Subchapter V trustee is appointed in every Subchapter V case with the limited powers of advising regarding operations, assisting with disbursements, and assisting in negotiation of a consensual plan of reorganization. The Subchapter V Trustee does not have the broad powers of a Chapter 11 Trustee because he or she does not take possession of property of the estate and responsibility for the operations although, as in chapter 11, a traditional trustee may be appointed if the grounds exist under section 1104, such as fraud or gross mismanagement. The Subchapter V trustee is not the same as a chapter 13 trustee because he is not standing trustee and does not have the power to object to confirmation of the plan, etc.  The Office of the United States Trustee has created a pool of trustee candidates to be appointed on an ad hoc basis, depending on the type of business and needs of the case.

Time deadlines: The differences between the two cases are striking.  A small business debtor is allowed 300 days to file a plan and 45 days to confirm it; Subchapter V operates on a fast track, requiring the filing of a plan within 90 days. When considering the opt-in to Subchapter V the debtor and its lawyers must have their ducks lined up because it is not anticipated that Courts will be willing to grant an extension to a debtor who pleads it’s not prepared to file his plan. The debtor who does not file its plan on time risks conversion, dismissal or appointment of a trustee.

Best Interests of Creditors: As with Chapter 11, creditors must receive an amount equal to liquidation value of debtor’s assets.

Modification of trust deeds on residences now permitted: The SBRA changes the current prohibition against modifying the rights of holders of secured claims against the principal residence of the debtor. The debtor may now modify the rights of the holder of such a claim provided that the new value received was not used primarily to acquire the real property and the real property is used primarily in connection with the small business of the debtor.

Conclusion: the debtor can keep its business by paying its creditors the minimum necessary to comply with the projected disposable income requirement, subject to complying with the best interests of creditors test, without the necessity of obtaining creditor consent.  The benefits are significant, and it is to be expected that Subchapter V will be used extensively throughout the coming year and beyond.

- Iain A. Macdonald

Success Story: $20 Million Hotel and All Jobs Saved From Collapse

In the summary below, we tell the story of how we recently saved a $20 million hotel from collapse, keeping the doors open without interruption and saving all jobs.

The Company: A hotel in Riverside, California.

The Problem: The hotel defaulted on certain terms of an approximately $20 million loan agreement with a lender.  The lender subsequently initiated state court litigation to foreclose. 

The Solution:  We filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy case for the hotel, halting the state court litigation and allowing the hotel to continue to operate without interruption.  Thereafter, we handled issues touching upon municipal bond financing, assumption of the franchise agreement, disputed easements and purchase options.  Recently, we obtained bankruptcy court confirmation of the hotel's chapter 11  plan of reorganization, which modifies the terms of the loan agreement and completely resolves all issues.

The Impact: Through a confirmed chapter 11 plan, we saved the hotel from foreclosure.  The hotel’s bankruptcy case is now closed and the hotel is operating profitably. 

- By Roxanne Bahadurji

Mortgage Modification Procedures Established in Bankruptcy Courts forNorthern District of California

Effective August 1, 2015, most bankruptcy courts adopted sweeping new mortgage modification procedures, which can be viewed here.

This impressive set of new procedures was tested in Florida and certain other jurisdictions but is entirely new to the Northern District.  Specifically, the procedures provide for monitoring and mediation of mortgage modifications based upon lender consent.  Most major lenders regularly consent and have pre-registered with the electronic documentation system, which is key to the functioning of the program.

The program applies to all open and new chapter 13 bankruptcy cases in participating courts.  It may also be applied in individual chapter 11 bankruptcy cases by special request.

The new procedures streamline the processes under HAMP, HARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA, private bank programs and other mortgage modification procedures.  It also eliminates several common roadblocks to mortgage modification approval and dealing with mortgage modification denials, including document completion, income and expense analysis, forbearance and balloon payments, reamortization, cure of arrears and due diligence and title problems.

A key advantage is the combination of mortgage modification with bankruptcy relief, adding opportunities for discharge of unsecured debts, reorganization of priority debts and resolution of title and lien-priority issues.  This combination is likely to provide relief for thousands of debtors who were poorly served by either process standing on its own.

Chapter 7 Trustee Must Notify Creditors and Obtain Court Approval Before Paying Taxes

In In re Cloobeck, 14 C.D.O.S. 5982, No. 23-15432 (9th Cir. June 12,  2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee must notify creditors, set a hearing or opportunity for a hearing and obtain bankruptcy court approval as a condition of paying taxes incurred by the bankruptcy estate.  Specifically, a trustee must obtain court approval both as to the appropriate amount of taxes and authority to pay the taxes.

Bankruptcy Code Section 503(b)(1)(B) affords administrative priority to tax claims against the estate.  A creditor objected to the trustee's payment of estate taxes more than two years after apparently learning of the payment, arguing that Section 503(b) requires "notice and a hearing" before payment of administrative expenses.  

The trustee argued that this would be inconsistent with Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) Section 6012(b)(4), which provides that:  "Returns of an estate, a trust, or an estate of an individual under chapter 7 or 11 of [the Bankruptcy Code] shall be made by the fiduciary thereof."  Moreover, the trustee must ordinarily pay federal taxes on time.  28 U.S.C. § 960. Also, Section 503(b)(1)(D) excuses the government from filing a request for payment of an administrative expense, unlike other creditors.

The bankruptcy court rule in favor of the trustee.  On appeal, the district court affirmed and determined that the creditor's objection was untimely.  The creditor appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.  Specifically, the court ruled that the trustee must notify creditors and set a hearing, or provide an opportunity for a hearing, and must also obtain court approval both as to the appropriate amount of taxes and authority to pay the taxes.  The court explained that a trustee must pay taxes in time, even if the IRS does not file a request, and must also provide notice and an opportunity for hearing.  Judge Wallace concurred in the result but write separately to voice concerns over the timeliness of the creditor's objection.

Reno Fernandez Recognized by Bar Association of San Francisco for National Volunteer Week

Today the Bar Association of San Francisco recognized Reno Fernandez in honor of National Volunteer Week for his work as chair of the Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section, an arm of the bar association dedicated to continuing legal education of the bankruptcy bar.  Read more here.

Starting Up & Winding Down: Both Sides of the Business Cycle

Join Matt Olson for lunch as he and Greg Demirchyan present "Starting Up & Winding Down: Both Sides of the Business Cycle" for the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco on Tuesday, May 26, 2015.  Reno Fernandez is a member of the section's executive committee.

Starting Up and Winding Down: Both Sides of the Business Cycle

Fail again.
Fail better.
- Samuel Becket


This is the entrepreneur's motto.  In this program, learn to properly form and advise a startup and also wind it down so entrepreneurs can smoothly transition to the next project.


Speakers


Greg Demirchyan
Emergent Legal

Matthew J. Olson
Macdonald Fernandez LLP

Topics

• Forming corporations and limited liability companies
• Advising startups, tips and best practices
• Winding up and dissolving a company out of court


Date, Time & Location


Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Noon to 1:30 pm
301 Battery Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, California


RSVP HERE