Employees who sue their employers must disclose that lawsuit if they file for bankruptcy—right? Maybe not. In Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Eleventh Circuit overruled prior precedent and impaired a valuable defense for early dismissal or settlement with bankrupt plaintiffs. This decision will affect strategy for employers that face litigation from bankrupt plaintiffs.

Legal Background

SAW (SW) 2010 Ltd & Anor v Wilson & Ors [2017] EWCA Cif 1001 (25 July 2017)

The Court of Appeal has held that the validity of a floating charge (and the appointment of joint administrators under that floating charge pursuant to paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986) does not depend on the existence of uncharged assets of the company at the time of its creation, nor upon the power of the company to acquire assets in the future.

BACKGROUND

Randhawa & Anor v Turpin & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1201

In a fascinating (and very readable) judgment, the Court of Appeal has held the appointment of joint administrators made under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to be invalid because, among other things, the appointment was made following an inquourate board meeting. Readers are encouraged to read the judgment, as the following is merely an overview of the facts and conclusions.

BACKGROUND

Some bankruptcy experts predict an increase in business failures for government contractors in the coming years. Increased demands and constraints on government spending will stress both prime contractors and subcontractors. As federal regulations generally place the burden of compliance on prime contractors, a financially distressed subcontractor is a concern not only for the sub, but also for the prime contractor.

A sub’s financial problems jeopardize the sub’s ability to perform its subcontract and, thus, pose serious threats to a prime contractor, including:

After several years of drafting, debate, compromise and fine tuning, it appears that major changes to the administration of consumer bankruptcy cases are imminent. On April 27, 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts submitted to Congress amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that will have a profound impact on consumer bankruptcy cases.

On Dec. 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp, No. 15-659. (S. Ct. argued Dec.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified the type of injury that must be alleged by a plaintiff suing under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision, in Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., is the first from the Eleventh Circuit applying the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Spokeo v. Robins.

Several of the Official Bankruptcy Forms will be replaced on December 1, 2015. For creditors, the most notable changes will be to two forms: the Proof of Claim form, Form 410, and the Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment, Form 410A. These changes reflect an effort by the Bankruptcy Courts to elicit a clear and complete picture of what the debtor owes and how much must be paid to cure a pre-bankruptcy arrearage. Due to the Bankruptcy Court’s focus on clarity, creditors are well advised to closely follow the claim forms and accompanying instructions.

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently held that creditors must move for an in personam remedy in the original foreclosure judgment or forfeit their right to collect deficiency funds. In Elliott v. Dyck O’Neal, the bank foreclosed upon a borrower’s residence, and sought judgment against the borrowers for the full amount of the outstanding balance in the complaint. The motion for default judgment, and accompanying order, however, only sought an order in rem for the outstanding debt—omitting any mention of an in personam remedy.

Trade creditors often face the issue of whether they are required to continue providing goods or services on credit to a customer that has filed chapter 11 bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the Bankruptcy Code fails to specifically address the rights and obligations of a trade creditor facing this dilemma, resulting in a tug-of-war created by the debtor’s need for continued goods and services and the creditor’s need for assurance of payment.