Mortgage servicers are plagued by their nebulous relationships with the borrowers who discharge their personal liability in bankruptcy. Issues arise when the borrower whose debt has been discharged continues to engage with the mortgage servicer. These activities include making monthly payments and requesting and participating in loss mitigation. There are few, if any, bright line rules regarding this common scenario.
On December 22, 2018, the federal funding for certain agencies lapsed, and the United States government entered into a partial shutdown. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including the United States Trustee Program (USTP), was one of the agencies that shut down. United States Trustees (“UST”) representing the USTP appear and litigate in a multitude of bankruptcy proceedings. USTs also actively participate in out-of-court settlement discussions, plan negotiations, and the like.
The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Doherty -v- Fannigan Holdings Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1615 considers the issue of whether a failure to pay for shares, as provided for under an agreement between the parties is a debt on which a statutory demand can be based.
The Advocate General Kokott (AG) has given her opinion in Grenville Hampshire -v- The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2018] (Case C-17/17). This challenges the level of compensation offered by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and could result in increased payments for members.
Background
Mr Hampshire initially brought the case to the Court of Appeal in July 2016, claiming that his pension was cut by 67 per cent when his company scheme was transferred into the PPF.
As the effective date for the CFPB’s successor in interest and bankruptcy billing statement requirements quickly approaches, one question we’ve heard multiple times is whether a mortgage servicer is required to know when a confirmed successor in interest is in bankruptcy. The question stems from upcoming provisions in Regulations X and Z that will collectively say, in essence, that a confirmed successor in interest must be treated as if he or she is a borrower for the purposes of the mortgage servicing rules.
Law360
Even if you haven’t purchased any bitcoin, you have likely heard about the cryptocurrency that was approaching $20,000 per coin late last year. The record high was quickly followed by a dramatic fall in value over 16 days in early 2018 — crashing to below $7,000. Since that time, bitcoin has been staging its recovery, and as of this writing, sits at slightly over $9,000 per coin. Not a bad place to be, considering bitcoin’s humble valuation of $.08 per coin back in 2010. It seems that despite its roller coaster persona, bitcoin is here to stay.
Municipal bankruptcies under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 901-946 (Chapter 9), are rare. These cases are often filed to adjust bonded indebtedness and pension obligations. Congressional authorization for Puerto Rico and its instrumentalities to file for bankruptcy under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) was similarly out of concern for excessive bond debt and pensions.
There are two aspects of wrongful trading and misfeasance that are of interest (i) board directors (and those advising the board) must be aware of the duties that the directors are subject to in performing their role as directors and the liability that attaches to breach of those duties and (ii) companies may be affected by the wrongful trading/misfeasance of customers/suppliers which impacts on trading.
The compulsory liquidation of Carillion is likely to have a wide ranging effect on the construction industry in the UK. The impact may well be felt by other contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers as well as engaged professionals such as architects, engineers and project managers. The insolvency may give rise to calls on bonds or guarantees and affect insurance arrangements.
In this bulletin we summarise what has happened and offer immediate advice.
One overarching certainty of federal debt collection law seems to be prolonged uncertainty over its appropriate scope. Is this scope about to change yet again? One recent bill called the Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act of 2017, H.R. 1849, seeks to do just that.