Changes in law What’s new in the Polish law? An overview of selected changes in regulations and their impact on business Wierzbowski Eversheds | 2016 – Changes in law 2 Introduction We are pleased to present to you our brochure reviewing the changes in law that may soon have a significant impact on your business. The publication contains commentaries and analyses gathered from the perspective of what in our view may be important in 2016. The materials also reflect the issues our law firm encounters every day.

A balanced view A quarterly update from our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team Winter/ Spring 2015/2016 Real Estate Dispute Resolution Issue 12 Contents Welcome to the Winter 2015/2016 edition of Eversheds In Focus. Since our Autumn 2015 edition, the Courts have considered a number of important cases on issues ranging from break options, the legitimacy of controversial rates avoidance schemes, relief from forfeiture, specific performance of contractual obligations and what constitutes a penalty payment.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied a mortgagee’s motion to reopen a Chapter 7 case to compel the surrender of real property, due to a five-year delay in filing the motion.

In so ruling, the court agreed with an earlier ruling from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (In re Plummer, 513 B.R. 135 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014)), distinguishing “surrender” from “foreclosure,” and holding that a creditor cannot use the Bankruptcy Code to circumvent the obligations imposed by state law.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District ("Second DCA"), recently held that a notice of assignment of a mortgage loan pursuant to the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), § 559.715, Florida Statutes, is not a condition precedent to filing a mortgage foreclosure action, but certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court for resolution as one of great public importance. 

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied a mortgagee's motion to reopen a Chapter 7 case to compel the surrender of real property, citing a five-year delay in filing the motion.

In so ruling, the Court agreed with an earlier ruling from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (In re Plummer, 513 B.R. 135 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014)), distinguishing "surrender" from "foreclosure," and holding that a creditor cannot use the Bankruptcy Code to circumvent the obligations imposed by state law. 

The Insolvency Service recently published official statistics showing that the number of individual insolvencies in 2015 fell to the lowest annual level for a decade (by 19% to 79,965).

The statistics also show that:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a lender that is on inquiry notice that its security interest in the collateral had been fraudulently conveyed may lose its secured status.

However, the Court also held that the lender's negligence here did not amount to "purposeful avoidance of the truth" sufficient to justify application of the doctrine of equitable subordination, which allows a bankruptcy court to reduce the priority of a claim in bankruptcy.

This case concerned whether a fee payable by a tenant for assigning the lease involved the provision of “credit” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

A recent decision from a United States Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Illinois provides a detailed analysis of why proofs of claim on “time-barred” debt do not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or the Bankruptcy Code. The decision, Glenn v. Cavalry Investments, LLC, is among the growing number of decisions rejecting Crawford v. LVNV from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently dismissed allegations that a debt buyer violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by filing a proof of claim on time-barred debt, holding that such claims are precluded by the Bankruptcy Code, and that the FDCPA does not provide a private right of action against debt collectors who file time-barred proofs of claim in bankruptcy court.