Tomorrow two Slips members -- Adam and I -- journey to the House of Representatives. Ok, for Adam this is a journey to the crosswalk, but nonetheless ...
Like the rest of us, the U.S. Congress cannot wait until the Second Circuit argument on pari passu, now scheduled for June 20th. Unlike the rest of us, the U.S. Congress can do something about it -- and it is.
I recently published a law review article entitled Grand Theft Auto Loans with Ozy Adams. It discusses title lending based upon data collected by the State of New Mexico. This article cover a tremendous amount of ground, but as these things tend to go, I have now heard of two critical topics we should ahve discussed but didn't.
There's a fearful symmetry in the consumer finance world. It's a symmetry of bullies between overreaching financial institutions and plaintiff strike suits, as in both, litigation costs present a ceiling, under which there's a license to overreach.
A major argument against substantive regulation of industries (including consumer finance) is that the market self-regulates. Bad actors get bad reputations and lose business. Therefore, there's no need for government to intervene.
Fascinating story in the Guardian about Irish debtors temporarily moving to the UK in order to gain access to more favorable bankruptcy law. I guess the Brit's have a more lenient version of 522(b)(3) or a looser good faith filing doctrine/plan approval/discharge requirement. I wonder how long this sort of international loophole will remain open within the EU.
As Stephen noted, the Supreme Court has decided the RadLAX case. Although I suspect I won't be the only Credit Slips blogger to comment on the case, I had a few thoughts on the interpretive methods instead of the result. In a short opinion, the Court reached the correct results in what was an easy case.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the 7th Circuit in RadLAX. I'm sure Adam, I, and others will have more comments to follow. The 8-0 decision certainly makes me feel a bit more comfortable about those old posts arguing that the 3d Cir. was aggressively wrong.
