In a win for lenders, on March 18, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that an unambiguous make-whole provision in a loan contract was enforceable under New York law, despite the fact that the lender had accelerated the loan. In re 1141 Realty Owner LLC, 2019 WL 1270818 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019).

Background

In a comprehensive report issued last week, the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy proposed recommendations that would allow student loans to be easier to discharge in bankruptcy, citing the staggering $1.5 trillion in student loan debt held in the United States and the current difficulties with discharging this type of debt in bankruptcy.

Last week, a Ninth Circuit panel held that plaintiffs in five related cases lacked standing to pursue their FCRA claims. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the allegation that a credit report contained misleading information, absent any indication that a consumer tried to engage in or was imminently planning to engage in any transactions for which the alleged misstatements in the credit reports made or would make any material difference, does not constitute a concrete injury.

In many, if not all, commercial transactions, timing is everything, either for a distressed seller or a purchaser stumbling upon a deal that may almost be too good to be true. There is often no time to waste and a deal must be closed as soon as possible. In the haste of closing a deal, whether in the form of a sale of business or a sale of assets, the parties often agree not to comply with the provisions of s34(1) of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 (Act), each willing to take the risk in not doing so.

Section 34(1) of the Act provides that:

On March 11, 2019, a U.S. district court judge in California denied FERC’s motion to withdraw the reference of Pacific Gas and Electric’s (“PG&E”) adversary proceeding from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the ongoing jurisdictional dispute between FERC and the bankruptcy court. In his ruling, Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the U.S.

It is trite that the purpose of business rescue proceedings is to rehabilitate companies that have fallen on hard times, with a hope of either rescuing them or to provide a better return to creditors than what they would receive on a liquidation. This was reiterated in the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment of Van Staden and Others NNO v Pro-Wiz (Pty) Ltd (412/2018) [2019] ZASCA 7 (8 March 2019).

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court has denied a creditor’s motion for sanctions against a law firm in the Middle District of Florida which the creditor alleged engaged in serial filings.

A federal bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Florida has ruled that the owner of a computer-financing scheme cannot hide behind a bankruptcy filing to shield himself from complying with a contempt order that required him to pay $13.4 million for violating an FTC order.

This past Friday, February 8, 2019, a panel of the Fourth Circuit unanimously held that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar a creditor from asserting an unsecured claim for attorneys’ fees incurred after the filing of a bankruptcy petition if those fees are guaranteed by a pre-petition contract. In Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. III, LLC v. Faison, No. 17-2441, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3967 (4th Cir. Feb.

The Bill aims to amend, among others, the Insolvency Act, 1936 (Insolvency Act) to provide that secured creditors holding property pledged as security for the obligations of a South African party arising under a “master agreement” may: