The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

A copy of the opinion in Shaw v. Bank of America is available at: Link to Opinion.

Following on from our blog: Does e-filing give you a headache? Does the recent guidance issued by the Chancellor help ease the pain?

In this blog, we highlight changes to law, practice and procedure that will or could impact the restructuring insolvency market this year – covering important changes that should be on your radar – as well as providing an update on those changes that were expected but which might be delayed beyond 2020.

Brexit – will it be business as usual for R&I practitioners?

This week sees the UK finally leave Europe.

First, there was the HMV case, then Skeggs Beef and SJHenderson. Following which we had further judicial decision in All Star Leisure and now Keyworker Homes, all of which considered the validity of appointment of administrators using the e-filing system.

Keyworker Homes deals with these questions:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that — despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements — the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Causer v All Star Leisure (Group) Ltd [2019] EWHC 3231 (Ch) (Causer) is yet another case which highlights the issues that e-filing can cause for practitioners when using the system to appoint administrators.

The decision in Causer followed Skeggs Beef in concluding that whilst the appointment of an administrator by a QFCH out of hours using the e-filing system is defective it is a defect capable of remedy. The case is nevertheless worthy of note because:

In this three part blog we highlight three recent court decisions concerning landlord rights and insolvency, which provide cautionary warnings and surprising twists. The questions we consider are:

1. Does a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) permanently vary the terms of a lease?
2. Can a landlord be forced to accept a surrender of a lease?
3. What are the consequences of taking money from a rent deposit if the tenant company is in administration?

In part 1 we consider the first question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held, in a case of first impression in that circuit, that a secured creditor’s failure to turn over collateral repossessed prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition does not violate the automatic stay.

A copy of the opinion inIn re Denby-Peterson is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court lacks the power to enforce discharge injunctions entered in other districts, and that the debtors’ particular private education loans were not excepted from discharge.

A copy of the opinion in Crocker v. Navient Solutions, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion.

Dealing with pensions in insolvency can be challenging for insolvency practitioners (“IPs”) and the Pension Scheme Bill (“Bill”) presents another.

Whilst a prudent insolvent practitioner should not be unduly alarmed, s114 of the Bill inserts a new section 80B into the Pensions Act 2004 which gives the Pensions Regulator (tPR) power to issue insolvency practitioners with a fine of up to £1 million.

A significant amount, and payable personally!