"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 recent decision of Markovic J in Robert Kite and Mark Hutchins in their capacity as liquidators of Mooney’s Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Lance Mooney & Anor [2017] FCA 653 in the Federal Court of Australia provides practitioners with further clarification of the requirements when insolvency practitioners are appointed to companies which operate as corporate trustees. 

KEY TAKE-HOMES FOR INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS

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.

Back in March 2017 the NSW Court of Appeal handed down the unanimous decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sakr [2017] NSWCA 38 (Sakr), reigning in Brereton J’s application of proportionality to liquidator’s remuneration. This week the decision of in the matter of Australian Company Number 074 962 628 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Colonial Staff Super Pty Ltd) [2017] NSWSC 370 (Colonial Super) was handed down by the NSW Supreme Court. The decision is notable as one of the first applications of the principles enunciated in the Sakr decision. 

On 9 March 2017 the NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Sakr [2017] NSWCA 38, unanimously allowing the liquidator’s appeal against a decision of Brereton J applying principles of proportionality and ad valorum to reduce the liquidator’s outstanding remuneration from the $63,000 claimed by the liquidator to $20,000.

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, the High Court of Australia heard a challenge brought by Clive Palmer in respect of the constitutional validity of the power of a liquidator to examine a former director of a company before the court. At the conclusion of that hearing, Kiefel J, as her Honour then was, stated that the Court was unanimously of the view that the challenge had failed and that reasons would be published later. Yesterday the High Court published those reasons.

The proceedings

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.