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 Court of Appeal - Supreme Court of Western Australian has delivered a decision confirming that a statutory set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act can still be available to a creditor where a general security interest has attached to the amounts it is seeking to set-off (provided those amounts are circulating assets of the insolvent company), whilst leaving the door open for creditors to rely upon set-off rights at general law in those instances where set-off under s 553C is unavailable.
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 High Court recently handed down its much anticipated judgment in Mighty River International Limited v Hughes, confirming that deeds of company arrangement which have the effect of extending the administration period can be valid under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act).
Key takeaways
The High Court has refused to grant the Queensland State Government (Qld Government) special leave to appeal the Queensland Court of Appeal’s March 2018 decision in favour of the liquidators of Linc Energy, concerning the liquidators’ obligations to cause Linc Energy to comply with an Environmental Protection Order (EPO).
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.
From next week the much hyped stay on ipso facto rights in certain contracts will be law. The relevant Legislation, Regulations and Declarations1 commence this Sunday, 1 July 2018.