Larson v. Swift Rock Fin., Inc. (In re Craig)

3 Citing cases

  1. Lischwe v. ClearOne Advantage, LLC (In re Erwin)

    CASE NO. 15-06713-5-DMW (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 2018)   Cited 5 times

    In a case almost identical to the present case, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision to deny a request by the defendants to compel arbitration. In Larson v. Swift Rock Financial, Inc., d/b/a World Law Group, d/b/a World Law Debt; Orion Processing, LLC, d/b/a World Law Processing; and Global Client Solutions, LLC (In re Craig), 545 B.R. 47 (D. Colo. 2015), the district court reviewed a bankruptcy case in which the Chapter 7 trustee filed an adversary proceeding to recover transfers to the defendants under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a) and under the Colorado Uniform Debt Management Services Act ("CUDMSA") because the excessive fees violated the provisions of the CUDMSA, which is very similar to the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The GCS Dedicated Account Agreement in Craig is identical to the 2014 GCS Agreement, except for minor font variations.

  2. Johnson v. S.A.I.L. LLC (In re Johnson)

    649 B.R. 735 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    It found that "[e]nforcing the arbitration clause here would conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code[.]" Id. at 560. SeeLarson v. Swift Rock Fin., Inc. (In re Craig ), 545 B.R. 47, 54 (D. Colo. 2015) ("[T]here is an inherent conflict between arbitration of the CUDMSA claim ... and the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.... In the context of this case, enforcing arbitration would substantially undermine the orderly, efficient, and effective administration of the bankruptcy estate."); Roth v. Butler University (In re Roth ), 594 B.R. 672, 677 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2018) ("Allowing an arbitrator to determine dischargeability creates an inherent conflict with the Bankruptcy Code[.]"); Lischwe v. ClearOne Advantage, LLC (In re Erwin ), No. 15-06713-5-DMW, 2018 WL 1614160, at *12 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 2018) ("To send both the core and non-core claims or even just to send the non-core UDTP Claim to arbitration would have a significant adverse effect upon the adjudication of these claims and upon the fundamental purposes of the Bankruptcy Code and would risk compromising the Debtor's rights under North Carolina law.").

  3. Johnson v. S.A.I.L. (In re Johnson)

    22 B 8837 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2023)

    . See Larson v. Swift Rock Fin., Inc. (In re Craig), 545 B.R. 47, 54 (D. Colo. 2015) ("[T]here is an inherent conflict between arbitration of the CUDMSA claim … and the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code…. In the context of this case, enforcing arbitration would substantially undermine the orderly, efficient, and effective administration of the bankruptcy estate.")