In Worthy Lending LLC v. New Style Contractors. Inc., the New York Court of Appeals held that a security interest includes a lender’s right to force the borrower’s account debtors to remit payments directly to the lender, regardless of whether an event of default exists. Further, the court clarified that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not provide a distinction between a security interest and an assignment.

On July 19, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ruled that a creditor’s proof of claim — while meeting the standard of the Bankruptcy Code — was insufficient to enforce the debt under state law and was therefore subject to disallowance.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has released guidance to its attorneys regarding requests to discharge student loans in bankruptcy cases.

Creditors and debt collectors may rest assured that they are not violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when sending debt-collection communications prior to any knowledge of a debtor’s bankruptcy filing. In Carrasquillo v.

When deciding the amount of homestead exemption to which a debtor is entitled, should a bankruptcy court apply the state exemption in effect on the creation date of the lien or on the bankruptcy filing date? According to the Ninth Circuit in a recent decision, the court should apply the state exemption law in effect on the filing date of the bankruptcy petition.

Introduction

Introduction

Executive Summary

Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?