On August 20, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois in In re I80 Equipment, LLC, No.17-81749, 2018 WL 4006294 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2018) held that a secured party failed to perfect its security interest due to an insufficient description of the collateral listed in its UCC-1 financing statement. The financing statement failed to sufficiently describe the collateral because it referenced the definition of “collateral” in the underlying security agreement without attaching the security agreement to the financing statement.

The Government has announced that it will legislate to prohibit the enforcement of certain contractual termination clauses ('ipso facto clauses').

As with other aspects of the response to recent insolvency and corporate governance consultations, this has given us pause for thought.

HERE LIONS ROAM: CISG AS THE MEASURE OF A CLAIM'S

VALUE AND VALIDITY AND A DEBTOR'S

DISCHARGEABILITY

Amir Shachmurove*

INTRODUCTION ............................................ ..... 463

I. A COMEDY OF ERRORS .............. 468

II. RELEVANT BANKRUPTCY LAW: THE CODE AND THE RULES ............ 470

A. Code and Rules .......................... ......... 470

B. Determination of a Claim 's Validity and Value .............. 471

C. Temporary Valuation Pursuant to Rule 3018(a) .... ........ 475

View original on Law360: https://www.law360.com/articles/1088680/ucc-incorporation-by-reference-an-imperfect-way-to-perfect

The Government has published its response and action plan following its consultation in March this year on reforming the UK’s corporate governance landscape in the context of insolvent companies.

In its original consultation, the Government put forward various proposals to deal with perceived deficiencies in the management of troubled companies that may be leading to poorer outcomes for creditors, employees and other stakeholders.

In March 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published a consultation on proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. That consultation included certain significant proposals, including extending liability to the directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries.

On August 16, seven Democrat senators proposed a bill (S.3351, named the “Medical Debt Relief Act of 2018”) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to cover certain provisions related to the collection of medical-related debt. The proposed act would institute a 180-day waiting period under the FCRA before medical debt could be reported on a person’s credit report. Further, medical debt that has been settled or paid off would be required to be removed from a person’s credit report within 45 days of payment or settlement.

Currently, some courts allow borrowers to bring Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims for non-judicial foreclosures while other courts do not, but that is about to change.

The Southern District of West Virginia recently held that the reporting of an account being paid through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan as having an outstanding balance or past due payments does not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.

In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.

What happened?