Supreme Court 22 January 2022, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:80 - www.rechtspraak.nl

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with the following question: can the bankruptcy trustee recover a payment made from a bank account with a debit balance in the name of the bankrupt company after the bankruptcy date, as undue payment due to a breach of the fixation principle or the equality of creditors principle?

Hoge Raad 22 januari 2022, ECLI:NL:HR:2022:80 (www.rechtspraak.nl).

Introductie

In het onderhavige arrest buigt de Hoge Raad zich over de volgende vraag: kan de curator een girale betaling, gedaan na datum faillissement vanaf een op naam van de failliet staande bankrekening met een debetsaldo, als onverschuldigd terugvorderen wegens strijdigheid met het fixatiebeginsel of de paritas creditorum?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that the “no fair ground of doubt” standard established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Taggart v. Lorenzen, a case involving alleged violation of a Chapter 7 discharge order, governed civil contempt proceedings for violation of a confirmed reorganization plan under Chapter 11.

In its top consumer credit law decisions of 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that settlement of an FDCPA claim does not trigger an attorney fee award, examined third-party contact as a “communication” under the FDCPA, and ruled there was no “partial surrender” of collateral in a Chapter 13 plan.

Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 993 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2021)

When 2020 ended, many of us were unsure what 2021 would look like from a bankruptcy perspective. Would consumer filings increase? Could we see bankruptcy reform and particularly in the area of discharge of student loans? There was a lot to consider throughout the year. This article will provide some insight as to what we saw and where we may be headed in 2022.

Bankruptcy Filings Down in 2021

Bankruptcy filings through the first 11 months of 2021 were at their lowest levels since the 1980’s.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several actions by a borrower against a mortgagee, and in so ruling also held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the lower court’s remand order, and that the borrower had waived his right to challenge an award of attorney fees and costs in connection with the remand.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently rejected a borrower’s objections to a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the borrower’s claim objection as it was ultimately based on the alleged impropriety of the creditor’s claim from a prior bankruptcy.

A copy of the opinion in BVS Construction v. Prosperity Bank is available at: Link to Opinion.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling denying a borrower’s motion to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure against him and confirming the judicial sale of the borrower’s property.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that a debtor’s appeal of a sale order was statutorily mooted by Subsection 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that: (1) while the Bankruptcy Code bars relief for an appeal pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), it does not defeat jurisdiction; and (2) Subsection 363(m) applies to appeals from any sale authorized by the bankruptcy court, not just those properly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed lower court rulings that a bankrupt debtor was entitled to receive damages and attorneys’ fees for a creditor’s violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy.

In so ruling, the Court held that: