The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the denial of bankruptcy discharge for a Chapter 7 debtor due to the debtor’s failure to keep adequate records.

In particular, the Eighth Circuit focused on a sudden and financially significant return of hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of high-end watches and jewelry that left significant unanswered questions as to the whereabouts of the assets and the legitimacy of the creditor jeweler’s claim.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense to a preference action under § 547(c) applied to a creditor bank that released its liens for less than full payment.

In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit BAP held that the bankruptcy trustee could not recover two of the three payments that the debtor made to the bank during the 90-day pre-petition preference period.

In the current climate, it is expected that thousands of business will enter administration and Administrators will need to assess each administration on its merits to see if it is appropriate to adopt a light touch approach.

As a result of the unprecedented situation that is being faced by businesses due to the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns there have been many discussions within the insolvency and legal sectors about how best to rescue struggling businesses.

As a creditor, especially during the current Covid-19 crisis, it may be tempting to accept all and any payments from debtors.

Payments that a debtor company makes to you during the period where there is a winding-up petition in place will be a void disposition, under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986, unless there is an application to the Court and receipt of what is known as a “validation order,” allowing you to keep the money.

What’s happening in real life?

The changes?

On Saturday, during the Government’s daily Coronavirus update, it was announced that it would shortly legislate to:

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.

In a recent decision, [1], the High Court decided that it was not in the public interest to wind up a business rates mitigation scheme under its Insolvency Act powers, as it found that this scheme did not subvert the intention of insolvency law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that — despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements — the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.