The Moss & Barnett Creditors’ Remedies and Bankruptcy group enjoys a national reputation and is staffed with two Certified Bankruptcy Specialists, as well as other experienced professionals who routinely practice in the areas of:
Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) compliance and defense
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) compliance and defense
State collection agency licensing compliance
ACA International collection notice review
Business-to-business debt collection
Defense of creditors and professionals in Automatic Stay and Discharge injunction litigation
Defense of national class actions under the FDCPA and FCRA
Representation of creditors and other interested parties in complex Chapter 11 bankruptcy matters
Bankruptcy preference defense
Debt workouts
Creditor discharge litigation
Recovery of collateral
Debt Collector and Debt Buyer Representation in FDCPA and FCRA Matters
Moss & Barnett attorneys represent debt collectors, debt buyers and fellow attorneys in numerous cases that shape and define this area of law, including representation in the following landmark cases:
Our experience and knowledge in FDCPA matters is first rate and we have prevailed in numerous cases, as well as quietly resolved hundreds of other cases. We know which cases to fight and which cases to settle, and we also know the settlement value for these cases. Our attorneys are licensed in several states and appear on a "case-by-case" basis in other jurisdictions across the country. We also have a proven network of local attorneys to appear in matters.
Two of our attorneys are authorized by ACA International to conduct collection notice reviews. Further, Moss & Barnett attorneys have extensive experience in representing debt buyers and debt collectors in state licensing and compliance matters.
Bankruptcy and Work-out Representation
In Bankruptcy cases and out-of-court work outs, our attorneys have substantial experience and a wide-ranging practice. They bring an aggressive problem solving approach to these problems, and apply their understanding of business and legal issues to attain a solution. Here is a sampling of the cases they have handled:
Served as counsel for the creditors committee in Hitchcock Industries, a case in which the unsecured creditors, who totaled some $4.5 Million, were paid in full with interest.
Served as defense counsel for national, regional and local companies in preference litigation in bankruptcy courts throughout the United States. These matters range in size from several thousand dollars to tens of millions of dollars.
Served as co-counsel to the Creditors Committee in the Chapter 11 case of Sheldahl, Inc. in Minnesota. Evaluated hundreds of preference claims and, with co-counsel, commenced approximately 125 preference recovery actions after settling many prior to bringing suit. All net proceeds from preference collections, as well as from the sale of numerous other assets, are to be paid to the unsecured creditors.
Represented a nonprofit corporation owning three Minnesota nursing homes in its Chapter 11 case. The case concluded successfully with a stipulated dismissal of the Chapter 11, including an agreement with the unsecured creditors committee and a long-term payout to the State of Minnesota of its alleged overpayments for reimbursement.
Represented a bank in the Chapter 11 of a mail order company in which the bank recovered its principal and interest on a loan of approximately $6.5 million, plus value for stock issued to the bank in connection with the Chapter 11 reorganization.
Represented the State of Minnesota in the New York bankruptcy of a steel manufacturing company and its subsidiaries. We pursued over $100 million in claims based on taxes, environmental cleanup, workers’ compensation and related matters. The State retained $4.6 million of a refund claimed by the debtor, and successfully resolved a potential $50 million environmental cleanup claim.
Represented a financial institution with $10 million debt and a second place security interest in an optical company with $70 million in sales. Our client eventually purchased the company as part of its reorganization under Chapter 11.
Protected a foreign financial institution with security interest in assets of an oil drilling syndicator against lender liability and related claims. Negotiated acceptable treatment under the syndicator’s plan of reorganization and the allowance of approximately $4.5 million in claims against its guarantor.
Represented a Texas financial institution in defense of fraudulent conveyance claims by Chapter 11 debtor involving $6 million in real estate foreclosure. Our client was able to settle for less than the cost of defense.
Confirmed a Chapter 11 plan for an upstate New York retailing debtor with $65 million in sales and accomplished an out-of-court workout for a related company with more than 40 convenience stores in Ohio and Kentucky.
Served as court-appointed receiver of an airline charter company in the case of stock fraud and other fraud, involving in excess of $30 million. The creditors eventually received close to 100% of claims, public shareholders received substantial compensation, and the perpetrators went to jail.
[02/02] Gentry v. Siegel In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.
[01/30] Matter of Thorpe Insulation Co. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's orders denying a creditor's motion to compel arbitration and disallowing its claim is affirmed, where: 1) the resolution of the creditor's claim was a core matter in the bankruptcy; 2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the creditor's motion to compel arbitration; 3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give the creditor further opportunity for discovery; 4) the creditor's claim was properly disallowed because because the debtor's covenants in a settlement agreement were purported prepetition waivers of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, which need not be permitted.
[01/27] Matter of Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving the question whether the debtor was subject to the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the district court's holding that the single asset real estate provisions applied is affirmed, where: 1) the debtor, which existed solely to operate a 92-unit apartment complex, could be characterized as a single asset real estate debtor under the Bankruptcy Code; 2) the plain language of the Code gives no basis for a "whole business enterprise" exception to single asset real estate debtor status that would allow the court to consider parent corporation and sister subsidiaries; and 3) the district court did not err in its approach to granting relief from the automatic stay by leaving questions about whether the debtor timely took timely corrective action to the bankruptcy court in the first instance.
