Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overruled its own precedent, holding that the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes modification of undersecured homestead mortgage claims—not just the payment schedule for such claims—including through bifurcation and cram down.
- The Court of Appeal has given guidance to insolvent companies about whether to commence an adjudication.
- There is an important distinction to be drawn between a company in a CVA and one in liquidation.
- Parties need to be careful when making general reservations to an adjudicator's jurisdiction.
What's it about?
On December 13, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the operator of a computer-financing scheme cannot use his bankruptcy to discharge a $13.4 million judgment entered in 2016 for violating a 2008 FTC order.
On October 26, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and instead entered judgement in favor of two creditors and two consumer reporting agencies (collectively, “defendants”), holding that the debtor failed to show a factual inaccuracy in the credit reporting of a debt.
On November 8, a federal jury for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota awarded the ResCap Liquidating Trust, the post-bankruptcy successor-in-interest to Residential Funding Company, LLC (RFC), a $27.8 million verdict in an indemnity case against a correspondent lender.
Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1468
The Court of Appeal has for the first time applied the rule against reflective loss to claims by creditors. The rule had in the past only been used to prevent claims by shareholders against directors, where the losses claimed by the shareholders reflected those suffered by the company.
On July 27, the U.S.
Orexim Trading Limited v (1) Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited ("MPT") (2) Singmalloyd Marine (S) PTE Limited ("Singmalloyd") (3) Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited ("Zen") [2018]
In a decision that will be of particular interest to creditors and insolvency practitioners contemplating section 423 Insolvency Act claims against defendants based outside the EU, the Court of Appeal has refused a claimant permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction.
On June 29, the FDIC and Federal Reserve issued (here and here) a joint request for public comment on proposed revisions to resolution plan guidance for the eight largest and most complex U.S. banks.
On May 17, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that an attorney fees award imposed under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) is a civil penalty and is not dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code.