In Dahlin v. Lyondell Chemical Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1956 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that bankruptcy debtors were required by due process to provide more prominent notice of a case filing than they did, such that the notice might have been seen by unknown creditors with claims to assert.

Bankruptcy courts lack the power to impose serious punitive sanctions, a federal district judge ruled recently in PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Sensenich, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207801 (D. Vt. Dec. 18, 2018). Judge Geoffrey Crawford reversed a bankruptcy judge’s ruling that had imposed sanctions against a creditor based on Rule 3002.1(i) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the bankruptcy court’s inherent authority, and Bankruptcy Code section 105.

On November 9, responding to a request from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Solicitor General filed a brief at the Court recommending that the petition for writ of certiorari in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-11911, be granted. The petition, seeking review of a unanimous panel decision of the Eleventh Circuit, presents the question of “whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a ‘statement respecting the debtor's . . .

After a lengthy consultation period, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) has now been finalised and will come into force on 1 October 2017. This protocol will apply to lenders who are seeking payment of a debt from an individual/ sole trader, as a debtor or guarantor. Now is the time to update your systems and procedures to accommodate the new protocol requirements.

What is required?

The Ministry of Justice is consulting on a revised draft Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims (Debt Protocol) after an earlier version was lambasted by representatives of the credit industry as being totally disproportionate. The new version attempts to strike a more proportionate balance between the needs of creditors, debtors and debt advisors.