The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed a trial court’s order denying two borrowers’ request for attorney’s fees and costs on judicial estoppel grounds.
In so ruling, the Fourth DCA held that the trial court improperly relied on a Fifth Circuit case and failed to apply Florida’s judicial estoppel doctrine when it concluded that the borrowers’ failure to disclose their attorney’s fee claim in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy schedules barred the fee claim.
With the news of major government contractor Carillion's liquidation, we look at the practical steps public bodies should be taking if Carillion is one of their contractors or is part of their supply chains so as to ensure there is as little disruption as possible across their service areas.
Contract review
Adding to the growing split of authority among California’s various state appellate courts, and among various federal courts in California, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, recently held that a loan servicer may owe a duty of care to a borrower through application of the “Biakanja” factors, even though its involvement in the loan does not exceed its conventional role.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity over claims which sought a temporary stay of a foreclosure sale pending the review of a loan modification application because the amount of controversy did not exceed $75,000.
In so ruling, the Court held that, for claims which merely seek a temporary stay of a foreclosure sale, the amount in controversy is not the value of the underlying loan.
A recent decision from a trial court sitting in Illinois calls into question whether debt collectors can rely on a widely used disclosure when collecting debt that may be subject to an expired limitations period.
A copy of the opinion in Richardson v. LVNV Funding, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that, following the confirmation of a foreclosure sale in Illinois, the only remedy available to a borrower under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 was damages, and therefore the one-year limitation period under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) applied and his claims were barred despite the fact that he provided rescission notices within three years of the loan closing, and despite the fact that the parties engaged in back-and-forth communications after the demands were first sent.
A Belgian diamond and precious metals trader, Exelco NV, has filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 15 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-12409). Exelco North America, Inc., along with three other American affiliates of Exelco NV, previously filed for Chapter 11 on September 27, 2017 (Lead Case No. 17-12029).
The special administrators of MFGUK have come up with a CVA proposal for its remaining ordinary creditors, which will enable the winding-up of the estate to the benefit of the creditors.
The administrators have made a number of material settlements and realisations during the administration, simplifying the estate and permitting distributions to ordinary unsecured creditors of 90p in the pound.
The High Court considered whether it would be appropriate to approve a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Luxembourg where the company's COMI had been moved to England and there had been a change in the governing law and jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.
It has been held that full and frank disclosure was not provided to the Court by a Russian Liquidator in granting a Recognition Order in the UK, which resulted in the Recognition Order being set aside. The issue was determined despite the parties being in agreement that the Liquidator's claims should be withdrawn.