The pre-existing dispute which may be ground to thwart an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 (“Code”)has to be a real dispute, a conflict or controversy. Such conflict of claims or rights should be apparent from the reply to Demand Notice as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Code. Essentially meaning that the Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be a real substantial dispute.

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 Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of RCAP (“Board”).

The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) has held that National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot exercise its residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to adjudicate upon the contractual dispute between the parties.

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 Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of SIFL and SEFL.

The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:

1) The step has been taken owing to governance concerns and defaults by SIFL and SEFL in meeting their various payment obligations.

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:

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court’s order confirming a farm debtor’s chapter 12 plan, concluding that the bankruptcy court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the value of a bank’s collateral where the collateral was disputed. The Panel also concluded that the bank needed to file a proof of claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the buyer at a homeowners association’s non-judicial foreclosure sale that was conducted in violation of the automatic stay in the borrower’s bankruptcy, and against a mortgagee whose interest in the foreclosed property would have been extinguished.

In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that a first deed of trust lienholder may set aside a completed super-priority lien foreclosure sale if the sale violates the bankruptcy automatic stay.