Once again, a bankruptcy court has weighed in on the subject of discharging student loan debt in the context of a chapter 7 proceeding.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico added its voice to the split in judicial authority on whether a lien or similar transfer can be avoided under sections 544, 547, 548 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code where only the debtor itself may benefit from the avoidance. Judge Thuma in his recent decision in U.S. Glove, Inc. v. Jacobs (In re U.S. Glove, Inc.), AP No. 21-1009, 2021 WL 2405399 (Bankr. D. N.M.

Michael Traison Chicago/NYC – 312.860.4230

Michael Kwiatkowski Garden City – 516.296.9144

The automatic stay provided under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is an injunction, arising when a bankruptcy case is filed, which prevents all proceedings or actions against the debtor or the property of the estate without court permission - the so-called “lifting of the stay”.[1]

In American jurisprudence, resolution of disputes often involves the use of important tools to obtain information necessary to achieving a client’s goals. These tools are collectively known as “discovery.” Discovery is most often used in litigation; however, it may also be used as part of the bankruptcy process, without the need for a pending lawsuit.

The imperative “justice, justice shall you pursue” is nowhere better illustrated than in the application of deadlines to perform an act, including filing dates, limitations dates, due dates for filing appeals, and deadlines for filing claims. Courts sometimes exercise their equitable jurisdiction rather than follow the literal language of rules of procedure.

When a debtor files bankruptcy, bankruptcy attorneys and creditors are well aware of the importance of assessing the need for creditors to file proofs of claim and making sure that proofs of claim are timely filed.

A recent High Court case has provided welcome clarity for LPA and fixed charge receivers as to the scope of their duty of good faith and potential conflicts of interest. Walker Morris’ Housing Management & Litigation Partner Karl Anders and Banking, Restructuring and Insolvency Director Owen Ormond explain.

Why is this case of interest?

HMRC has issued a consultation on the announcement in last year’s Budget to introduce legislation to restore HMRC’s position as a secondary preferential creditor in company insolvencies. This may impact upon pension schemes.

There have been a number of recent instances, including this year, of quoted companies calling general meetings to seek shareholder approval to remedy dividends that were paid unlawfully. Invariably these have been for non-compliance with a statutory formality rather than because the company did not have sufficient distributable profits to make the dividend.

Why are companies prepared to suffer the embarrassment and expense of going to their shareholders to fix the breach rather than simply doing nothing?