The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s disallowance of postpetition interest at the default contract rate, holding that “the bankruptcy court erred in applying a liquidated damages analysis and ruling the default interest rate was an unenforceable penalty,” and also erred in weighing “equitable considerations” to avoid enforcing the contractual default interest rate.

The High Court appointed an examiner to three connected companies involved in the food distribution industry on 27 March 2020 in what was effectively the first examinership of the Covid-19 pandemic period.  Fieldfisher acted on behalf of Wert Capital Ltd which was the parent company for a number of food distribution entities in a successful application for court protection for the Group from their creditors.

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.

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.

A Members’ Voluntary Liquidation (“MVL”) is an efficient way to wind up a solvent company and release value to members. It is most often used where the directors wish to retire, the company has realised its potential or the company is dormant. By properly winding up the Company, the danger of the company being involuntarily struck off the Register of Companies and any resulting liability for the Directors is removed. A summary of the process is as follows:

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.

It is almost 30 years since the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 (the “1990 Act”) which introduced the concept of Court protection for certain companies from their creditors to allow a formal restructure of a company’s debt. The examinership process is now governed by Part 10 of the Companies Act 2014 which mirrors the procedure provided for in the 1990 Act.   

Examinership process  

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.