Summary:

In paired  cases,  Erica Horne  brought  pro se  actions against  Credit Acceptance Corp.,  Experian, Equifax and Transunion under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,  which, as the magistrate held,   "in its entirety contain[ed] the following factual allegation:"

Attached are three criminal indictments  of bankruptcy debtors in North Carolina,  all of which largely relate  to undisclosed transfers or transactions after the filing of their bankruptcy.

Status:

Summary:

Summary:

Rather than summarize a Chapter 11 case in exhaustive detail  that both has little directly to do with consumer bankruptcy cases and has been summarized in exhaustive detail elsewhere,  here are links to a few of those:

Available at:  https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/jcfl/vol29/iss2/4/

Summary:

Summary:

Summary:

Michael Vincent Beverley filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on May 24, 2019,   disclosing In his petition his ownership of  real property located at 6680 Ridge Bluff Drive, Rural Hall, North Carolina, valued at $208,000, encumbered by a deed of trust and several judgment liens, including to BMO Harris Bank..  Mr.  Beverley  received a discharge on August 29, 2019, and the case was closed on September 9, 2019, but without filing motions to avoid judicial liens.

Summary:

Marshall and Tiffany Todman, tenants in Baltimore, were evicted and lost their belongings under Baltimore’s Abandonment Ordinance, which deems any property left behind at eviction as abandoned. The Todmans sued the City of Baltimore, alleging violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process,  asserting that they were deprived of their property without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

Summary:
Truck Insurance Exchange, the primary insurer for companies facing asbestos-related lawsuits, objected to the reorganization plan proposed by Kaiser Gypsum Co. and Hanson Permanente Cement, which had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The plan created an Asbestos Personal Injury Trust under 11 U.S.C. §524(g) to handle all asbestos-related claims. Truck, responsible for defending and indemnifying up to $500,000 per claim, argued that the plan exposed it to fraudulent claims due to inadequate disclosure requirements for insured claims.