The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently held that, at a minimum, a substantial change in circumstances is required to justify modification of a bankruptcy plan under Section 1229.
The Eighth Circuit BAP also determined that the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the debtors met their burden of showing an unanticipated, substantial change in circumstances was not clearly erroneous, despite multiple changes by the debtor, nor was the bankruptcy court’s finding that the fourth modified plan was feasible and confirmable.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s lawsuit against a debt collector, holding that the consumer lacked Article III standing to sue because his allegations of ʺconfusion” and “alarm” were not sufficiently concrete to result in an injury in fact.
In a bankruptcy trustee’s adversary action to recover money paid to a collection agency within 90 days prior to the filing of the debtor’s bankruptcy petition, and pursuant to a previous garnishment order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed the ruling of a trial court denying the trustee’s application.
Not all residential tenancies will be in the name of an individual. Sometimes it will be a company looking to take out the tenancy in their own name. Generally, this will be for the use of the one of the directors and their family. Often these sorts of agreements are seen as beneficial to many landlords who are under the impression that the company will be prompt with payment and ultimately good for the money. Whilst this can certainly be the case, it does not always work out this way.
Over the past year, the ebb and flow of bankruptcy filings has been an interesting one. Through 11 months, the number of bankruptcy filings has decreased from 2021, which was already at its lowest level since the 1980s.
The total number of bankruptcy filings through November stands at 346,760. Based on a recent monthly uptick in both consumer and commercial filings, we should expect the year to end with approximately 385,000, a 4% decrease from the 401,291 filings in 2021.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of a debtor who sought to avoid a judgment lien under California’s homestead exemption law.
In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that, when a judgment lien impairs a debtor’s state-law homestead exemption, the Bankruptcy Code requires courts to determine the exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled in the absence of the lien.
On 4th May 2021 the government introduced some new legislation, which seeks to help households cope with debt, entitled The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England & Wales) Regulations 2020.
The Regulations apply to debtors who reside or are domiciled in England and Wales, and largely to personal debts. Some business debts are eligible but not if they relate solely to the business and the debtor is VAT registered, or if the debtor is in partnership with someone else.
What we've been up to?
In the six months since our last full newsletter, the UK has witnessed some monumental events, the most significant of course being the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II – followed by no less than three different occupants at Nos. 10 & 11 Downing Street, a UK record summer temperature of 40.3C, inflation hitting a 41 year high, startling increases in energy & food prices (exacerbated by the ongoing war in Ukraine) and, as of this month, the UK economy officially falling into recession.
In response to a certified question from a bankruptcy court, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a recorded judgment lien attaches to homestead property where the judgment debtor has equity in excess of the $150,000 exemption under Arizona law.
In addition, given the uncertainty of the law that prompted the certified question, the Court denied the bank’s request for attorney’s fees.
The recent case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] has clarified what is a ‘relevant debt’ of a company which uses a ‘prohibited name’ and for which a director or person who manages that company can be personally liable for.
Who will be interested in this article?