January 17, 2017
Daniel Geyser Argues Critical Debt Collection Case Before the Supreme Court
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, a case that asks an important question targeting a billion-dollar industry practice. At issue was whether large debt-collection companies could buy time-barred debt for pennies on the dollar, and then seek to recover that stale debt in consumer bankruptcies—without disclosing to the participants or the courts that the debt is unenforceable.
Arguments on both sides were compelling. As Harvard Law Today noted, “The three attorneys who argued Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson had all been on teams that won the Ames Competition within four years of each other at Harvard Law School.” Daniel Geyser argued on behalf of Aleida Johnson, a victim of this troubling nationwide practice. To listen to Mr. Geyser’s argument, click here. For more information, please contact Mr. Geyser at firstname.lastname@example.org or (213) 995-6811.
Read our case study:
NACBA—Fighting Illegal Debt-Collection Practices
Related press coverage:
Tournament of Champions: Ames winners argue all sides in a case before Supreme Court (Harvard Law Today, June 21, 2017)
SCOTUS Struggles With Stale Debt Collection in Bankruptcy (Bloomberg BNA, January 19, 2017)
Sotomayor Rips Into Bad-Debt Industry, Other Justices Cautious About Enforcement (Forbes, January 18, 2017)
Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Collection of Expired Debts (Wall Street Journal, January 17, 2017)
High Court Wrestles With Clash Over Stale Debt In Bankruptcy (Law360, January 17, 2017) (subscription required)