While in previous weeks the winding up petition list has been adjourned for a minimum of three months, this week’s list was successfully conducted by Skype. This article discusses how the hearings worked.

As most businesses, landlords and property solicitors will now know, s.82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“CA 2020”) means there can be no forfeiture for non-payment of rent until July 2020, possibly later (“the relevant period”). But forfeiture has never been the only option open to a landlord whose tenant isn’t paying rent. The government lockdown was announced just two days before the March quarter day, with the inevitable consequence that many businesses did not pay the March quarter day rent.

In these unusual times, Hardwicke is open for business as usual and here to help you and your clients with the multiple issues that may arise out of the current economic conditions. This information update is to help keep you up to date with developments and to share our insight in response to the developments our country is going through at this unprecedented time.

We will be providing regular information to keep you up to date. This update covers:

Although the position is fast-moving and guidance is expected to be given in due course by the Law Society, it is presently understood that remote video conferencing technology such as Skype or Zoom could be used by a practising solicitor to administer a statutory declaration.

Today’s list of winding up petitions has been adjourned for a minimum of three months with petitions being re-listed for June, July and August. ICC Judge Mullen recited in his order that having considered the Protocol for Remote Hearings dated 20^th March 2020 and the LCJ’s Review of Court Arrangements due to COVID-19 dated 23^rd March 2020, he has concluded that the list “cannot presently be conducted remotely” and that “satisfactory arrangements to ensure safety cannot be put in place”.

Introduction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected a loan servicer’s appeal from a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling to remand to the lower bankruptcy court a punitive damages award for alleged discharge violations.

In so ruling, the Court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction regarding the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling as to the punitive damages award, but affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s denial of the debtors’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that a debtor alleged a plausible claim against a mortgage loan servicer under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the servicer’s proof of claim filed after obtaining a foreclosure judgment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

A copy of the opinion in Shaw v. Bank of America is available at: Link to Opinion.

Section 239(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “1986 Act”) limits the jurisdiction to reverse a preference to situations where “the company which gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce” the prohibited result. This involves a subjective enquiry which turns on the relevant actor’s state of mind.