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.

Seeking directions from the Court in the period 1 March to 1 September 2017 – what are liquidators and administrators to do?

Justice Robson has delivered his decision on an application by receivers and managers for directions as to, among other things, their obligations to pay preferential debts under the Corporations Act from the surplus generated by their trading-onof a business and other recoveries by their appointing bank.

Is a “stay of enforcement” of a judgment within the meaning of s 15(2) of the Foreign Judgments Act brought about by s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act?

Talacko v Bennett [2017] HCA 15, 3 May 2017

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.

As noted in a previous post about the Sakr case[1], the worth of the work done by a liquidator can be calculated in various

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

A recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal serves as a timely reminder of the costly consequences of failing to register a PPSR security interest in leased goods.

Power Rental Op Co Australia, LLC v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2017] NSWCA 8

In March 2013 General Electric International Inc (GE), the appellant’s predecessor in title, agreed to lease turbines to Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (Forge Group).

In Suk v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd [2016] FCA 1404, the Federal Court (a) provided guidance on how courts are to determine what stay arises upon recognition of foreign main proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008; and (2) demonstrated that such recognition can cause maritime lien actions to be stayed.