Fulltext Search

In its June 6, 2022 opinion in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and invalidated a 2017 statute that increased U.S. Trustee fees in 48 states—but not Alabama or North Carolina—as unconstitutional under the uniformity requirement of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause. See Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. ___ (2022).

U.S. Trustee Fees, a History

The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, commonly referred to as the "Breathing Space Regulations", came into force on 4 May 2021. The Regulations provide eligible individuals with problem debt a period of protection from their creditors known as a "breathing space moratorium".

The active trading of loans made to a borrower that has become unable to repay in full (known as non-performing loans or distressed debt) has been a feature of the North American and European loan markets for a number of years.

The Insolvency Service has published a report on the research commissioned by it on the use of Company Voluntary Arrangements ("CVAs") by large companies in the retail trade, accommodation and food and beverage sectors.

The Insolvency Service has published an interim report which evaluates three permanent changes to the insolvency regime as introduced by The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA): restructuring plans; the standalone moratorium and the restriction on contractual termination rights (so-called ipso facto clauses). The takeaway messages are as follows:

Insolvency figures for May 2022 were published by the Insolvency Service on 17 June, and reveal an increase in corporate insolvencies both compared to pandemic and pre-pandemic levels.

The deadline for obtaining an order to suspend discharge from bankruptcy is absolute, as confirmed in the recent case of Paul Allen (as Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Pramod Mittal (in bankruptcy) [2022] EWHC 762 (Ch).

Background

Em sessão realizada em 27 de abril de 2022, a Segunda Seção do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) julgou o Recurso Especial nº 1655705/SP, cujo acórdão recém-divulgado impôs a forma de pagamento fixada em Plano de Recuperação Judicial (PRJ) a determinado credor que não fez parte da recuperação judicial e pretendia cobrar o seu crédito individualmente.