"The Parent Bank entered into this insurance contract with its eyes wide open and its wallet on its mind."

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.

The statutory demand process is widely used by companies wishing to secure prompt payment of debts owing by companies registered in Australia. This article will look at a company's options for dealing with a statutory demand.

What is a statutory demand?

Introduction

The Sapin II Act of November 8 2016 amended the regime governing directors' liability in an insolvency scenario in order to encourage the recovery of honest directors of failed businesses.

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.

Introduction

The Sapin II Act of November 8 2016 amended the regime governing directors' liability in an insolvency scenario in order to encourage the recovery of honest directors of failed businesses.

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

In november 2016 is door de Hoge Raad bevestigd dat de vernietiging van een faillissement geen effect heeft op door een curator voordien verrichte beschikkingshandelingen. De curator kan rechtshandelingen verrichten tot het moment waarop de vernietiging in kracht van gewijsde is gegaan. Wel dient de curator terughoudend gebruik te maken van zijn bevoegdheden gedurende de periode waarin een vonnis tot faillietverklaring is vernietigd, maar deze vernietiging nog niet onherroepelijk is geworden.

Juridisch kader

De kwaliteit van de debiteurenportefeuille is van belang voor de beoordeling van de vraag of een tussentijds dividendbesluit door de beugel kan. Dat blijkt uit een uitspraak van de Hoge Raad d.d. 23 september 2016.