Fulltext Search

Often, clients contact us about debts due to them, with the expectation that a lengthy and expensive court action will have to take place before they have a chance of recovering those funds. However, in the right circumstances, there may be another option available.

Summary diligence is a peculiarity of the Scottish legal system. The term "summary diligence" is used to refer to enforcement of certain legal rights based on a document (for example, a lease) rather than a court decree. It can be a useful tool for creditors to avoid the courtroom.

It has taken over 20 months, but we now have a reported decision from the High Court in England on the operation of the new moratorium provisions introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. Sir Alastair Norris, sitting as a High Court judge, has rejected a creditor's attempt to bring a moratorium to an end following a monitors' decision not to terminate the moratorium.

The changes to the director disqualification regime brought by the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 (the "Act") come into effect on 15 February 2022. We discuss the extension of disqualification proceedings and the impact on directors here.

The Changes

On 26 January 2022, the Covid recovery and Reform Bill (the "Bill") was introduced to the Scottish Parliament. The Bill followed a consultation exercise by the Scottish Government on the proposed changes to Scottish bankruptcy (known as sequestration). These proposed changes generated a good deal of interest with almost 3,000 responses being received from individuals and representative organisations.

The automatic stay is a procedural tool in a bankruptcy case that effectively halts efforts by creditors to collect on a debtor’s outstanding obligations. As discussed in more detail in our prior post, immediately upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, a “bankruptcy estate” is created, which includes virtually all assets of the debtor.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 went into effect December 1, 2011. It was implemented to address a perceived problem in “cure and maintain” Chapter 13 cases (cases in which the debtor cures any pre-petition arrearage and maintains monthly post-petition payments on long-term loans) – that mortgage creditors were not providing the debtor with notice of post-petition payment changes and fees assessed post-petition, causing debtors to often exit a successful Chapter 13 with a delinquent loan.

Many creditors have been warned of the need to halt collection efforts once they are put on notice that a debtor has filed for bankruptcy. However, the “why” behind this warning, mainly the automatic stay, is often misunderstood or disregarded. Since violations of the automatic stay can have serious ramifications, it is crucial that creditors know what the automatic stay is, what it protects, and how to get relief from the stay so that the creditor can proceed with collection efforts.

What Is the Automatic Stay? What Does It Protect?

The Second Circuit’s August 2021 decision in In re Gravel, 6 F. 4th 503, has already received considerable attention and generated much debate over the last few months.

In the context of debt recovery litigation, the obtaining of a decree (judgment) should not be an end in itself and this is particularly true in relation to volume debt recovery litigation. The purpose of a court decree is to enable the creditor obtain payment from his debtor of the sums of principal, interest and expenses (legal costs) due in terms of the decree.

A few changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure became effective on December 1, 2021. The most noteworthy change relates to Bankruptcy Rule 9036, which addresses notice and service by electronic transmission.