The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.

A petition was recently filed in the High Court on behalf of two companies, Regan Development Limited (“Regan”) and McGettigan Limited (“McGettigan”) seeking the protection of the court pursuant to the Companies Act 2014 (the "Act"), and the appointment of an Examiner. Regan owns and operates the Regency Hotel on the Swords Road in Dublin and McGettigan owns and operates a licensed premise on Queen Street, Dublin 7 and four retail units in Bray, Co. Wicklow. On presentation of the petition the Court appointed Neil Hughes of Baker Tilly Hughes Blake as Interim Examiner.

In mortgage arrears cases separated couples have caused difficulties, in particular where one spouse has washed their hands from dealing with any debt. A recent High Court ruling has provided clarity in this area in relation to the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 and a secured creditor's position in relation to the non-engaging spouse.

In two recent decisions, both the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) and the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) concluded that certain orders entered in bankruptcy cases could not be grounds for invocation of res judicata with regard to proofs of claim that are deemed allowed. Both addressed the plain language of Section 502(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) in conjunction with relevant Bankruptcy Rules and Official Forms, and congressional intent.

On March 9, 2017, a bankruptcy court in New York became the latest to weigh in on the developing circuit court split regarding whether modification of mortgages should be permitted under 11 U.S.C.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the District Court) recently issued an opinion in the Paul Sagendorph bankruptcy case reversing the Bankruptcy Court's holding that a debtor can force a secured creditor to take title to its collateral in complete satisfaction of the creditor's secured claim.1 In reversing the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, the District Court held that the plain language of Sections 1322(b)(9) and 1325(a)(5)(C)2 does not empower a debtor to force a secured creditor to accept title to its collateral over that creditor's objection.3

Background

Any disposition of a company's property made after the commencement of its winding up, without the approval of the liquidator, is void. In a 2001 case (Re Industrial Services Company (Dublin) Ltd [2001] 2 I.R.118), the High Court held that the transfer by an account bank of monies from an in-credit account of a company in liquidation to third parties constituted a disposition and the bank could be liable to repay the value of such transfers despite not being aware of the winding up order for the Company.

William Fry understands that, on 30 January 2017, having regard for the recent implementation of the Solvency II regime, EIOPA's Board of Supervisors adopted a decision (the "Decision") which will replace EIOPA's General Protocol relating to the collaboration of the insurance supervisory authorities of the Member States of the European Union (March 2008 Edition).

We understand that the Decision with replace the General Protocol as of 1 May 2017 (and will be available on EIOPA's website shortly).

In the interim, the General Protocol (March 2008 Edition) continues to apply.

Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (the "TIA") states the right of a bondholder to receive payments pursuant to an indenture security cannot be "impaired or affected without the consent of such holder." Historically, issuers and bondholders have not engaged in extensive litigation based on the argument that Section 316(b) provides a broad restriction protecting bondholders' substantive right to actually receive such payments.

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling from 2015 that a former director of a car dealership was personally liable to a customer who paid the company for three vehicles in the weeks prior to the company's liquidation where the cars were ultimately not delivered to the customer due to the company's liquidation.

Background