On March 20, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed Senate Bill 220 into law. The bill is designed to limit the ability of defendants in foreclosure proceedings to keep contesting the foreclosure after agreeing, in bankruptcy, to surrender the property to their lenders.

Earlier this year, we wrote here about the decision in I.D.H. Diamonds NV v Embee Diamond Technologies Inc., 2017 SKQB 79, where Mr. Justice Layh held:

Some think that when you file for bankruptcy, you sell your proverbial soul to the devil.

While this view isn’t necessarily true, it does imply that bankruptcy is not an easy choice. It could mean short term relief, but it could also affect your self-image, reputation, and even future credit negatively. The experts at Allstate Law Center add that before making this choice, you should consider all factors and options.

Filing for bankruptcy is one of the most challenging experiences you can ever have. In fact, the things that happen before bankruptcy – calls from debt collectors, receiving garnishments, and the fear of losing your investments including your home and your car – can drive anyone to physical and mental exhaustion.

Affinity Credit Union 2013 v. Vortex Drilling Ltd. 2017 SKQB 228

This week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), holding that a debt collector does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing an “obviously time-barred” proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding. This case should stem the tide of FDCPA lawsuits against debt collectors for efforts to collect potentially time-barred debts in bankruptcy proceedings.

On May 15, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) in which it held that filing an “obviously time-barred” proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

National Insolvency Review, February 2017

Most or all creditors who lend to farmers will be familiar with the Farm Debt Mediation Act, S.C. 1997, c. 21 (the “FDMA”) and the need to serve a notice under the FDMA before taking action against a farmer. However, there are some details of how the FDMA operates that may not be as well-known. This piece will highlight some of those details.

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that a Chapter 11 debtor could not avoid the payment of default interest under a promissory note as a condition to curing and reinstating such promissory note under a Chapter 11 plan. In Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.), 840 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that its prior rule of allowing a curing debtor to avoid a contractual post-default interest rate in a loan agreement—as decided in Great Western Bank & Trust v.

The First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently issued a decision recognizing the rights of trademark licensees when the trademark’s owner files for bankruptcy.