With a new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that has become effective on 1 December 2016, India seeks to expedite the process for creditors seeking payment or foreclosure through the courts.

The Bankruptcy Code gives a trustee the power to avoid pre-petition fraudulent and preference transfers made by a debtor, except that a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is "made by or to (or for the benefit of)" a party enumerated in 546(e) of the Code "in connection with a securities contract." Although 546(e) has been applied in various circumstances, there is little court guidance on whether 546(e) protects transfers made to repay commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") loans. One case in particular has applied 546(e) to dismiss such an avoidance action: Krol v.

Il Decreto Legge n. 59/2016 (il cosiddetto “Decreto Banche”, di seguito il Decreto) è stato pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale (e successivamente modificato e convertito in legge con la Legge n. 199/2016) ed è recentemente entrato in vigore ma è ancora per alcuni aspetti in attesa della normativa secondaria per la sua implementazione.

The so called “Banks Decree” Decree (Law Decree no. 59/2016, hereinafter the “Decree”), published on the Official Gazette and converted into Law no. 199/2016, has recently entered into force.

The main purpose of the Decree is to grant a partial reimbursement to investors of few local banks that were resolved in November 2015. However, the Decree has also introduced additional innovations which represent a further significant step in the Government’s effort of streamlining the credit recovery activities and implementing a more creditor-friendly environment.

Italy's latest law reforms continue with creditor-friendly amendments to support the local banking sector while providing confidence to investors.

Decree Law No. 59/2016 (the so-called "Banks Decree," hereinafter the Decree) was published in the Official Gazette (the Decree was later amended and converted into law by Law No. 119/2016) and has recently entered into force.

Burr & Forman lawyers won a significant victory in the Eleventh Circuit earlier this month. In the case In re: David A. Failla, — F.3d — (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that a person who agrees to “surrender” his house in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2) may not oppose the creditor’s foreclosure action in state court. Our firm was one of the first to advance this argument, and many, but not all, of the bankruptcy judges in Florida agreed with our interpretation of surrender under the bankruptcy code and related case law.

On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States granted cert in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348 (Oct. Term 2016) to resolve a split among the Circuits as to the FDCPA’s prohibition against deceptive collection practices in the context of filing proofs of claim for debts where a collection action would otherwise be time-barred.

On October 4, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that chapter 7 debtors who file a statement of intention to surrender real property in bankruptcy cannot later contest a foreclosure action, and bankruptcy courts have broad power and authority to sanction violations. Failla v. CitiBank, N.A., case no. 15-15626 (11th Cir. October 4, 2016).

In Dubois v. Atlas Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 15-1945 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that filing proofs of claim on time-barred debts does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), at least where state law preserves the right to collect on the payment. In so holding, the court sided with the Second and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals in a circuit split regarding the viability of FDCPA claims premised on proofs of claim filed in a debtor’s bankruptcy case.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered a decision in the General Motors bankruptcy case that found an exception to the “free and clear” language of Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code2 where adequate notice of the sale order is not provided.3 However, the exception may not be far reaching due to the “peculiar” facts of the case.

Factual Background and Lower Court Decision