In another reminder that arbitration clauses remain powerful—but not limitless—Chief Judge Martin Reidinger of the Western District of North Carolina largely rejected GoodLeap's attempt to force a consumer into arbitration where the very existence of the contract was hotly disputed.
Professor Steinberg correctly identifies a genuine problem: bankruptcy courts have struggled for years with determining how much factual detail is necessary before a proof of claim should enjoy Rule 3001(f)'s prima facie presumption of validity. His proposed solution is a thoughtful step toward greater national uniformity.
The article, however, is also remarkably Chapter 11-centric.
The Supreme Court issued an important property-rights decision today in Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan, holding that when a government forecloses on real property for unpaid taxes and conducts a properly conducted tax sale, the Constitution does not require compensation based upon the property's hypothetical fair market value. Instead, the owner is entitled to the surplus proceeds actually generated by the sale after satisfaction of the tax debt.
The Fourth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Rock Spring Plaza II, LLC v. Investors Warranty of America, LLC is ostensibly a Maryland commercial lease case. But consumer bankruptcy lawyers will recognize a familiar pattern: a financially troubled enterprise attempting to isolate liabilities in a newly created entity, preserve the profitable assets, and leave creditors holding an empty bag.
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. may ultimately prove to be one of the most important consumer bankruptcy opinions of the decade—not because it answers every question about judicial estoppel, but because it refuses to allow lower courts to answer those questions with rigid presumptions.
In Sessoms v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, the Fourth Circuit reversed the Eastern District of North Carolina and held that USHealth Advisors, LLC could enforce an arbitration clause contained in a lead-generation website’s Terms of Use against a consumer bringing TCPA claims.
Summary:
Plaintiff Cynthia Sessoms alleged that USHealth violated the TCPA through prerecorded telemarketing calls. USHealth argued that Sessoms had previously agreed to arbitration when she sought insurance quotes through a NextGen/FirstQuoteHealth lead-generation website.
