The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently overruled a creditor’s objection to the debtors’ proposed chapter 13 plan, rejecting the association’s argument that its claim is secured by a consensual lien and may not be modified pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(2). Specifically, the Court found that a lien held by a New Jersey condominium or homeowners’ association can be either a statutory lien (subject to modification) or a consensual lien (not subject to modification) depending upon the circumstances presented. In re Keise, 564 B.R. 255 (Bankr. D.N.J.
Assets held by an insolvent corporate trustee in its capacity as trustee may not be "property of the company".
For more than 30 years, Victoria has stood apart from the rest of Australia in how it treats the assets of an insolvent corporate trustee. That may have changed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Re Amerind Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) [2017] VSC 127.
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first cause of action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), on the ground that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that the communications from defendant were sent in an attempt to collect a debt. SeeBurns v. Seterus, Inc., 2017 WL 104735 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2017). In 2005, plaintiff signed a note and mortgage secured by her residence.
We are seeing attempts by the Chinese Government to provide the market with more sophisticated tools for dealing with unprofitable companies.
China is attempting to align its insolvency regime to international standards and introduce additional tools for dealing with the country's rising debt load.
Australian lenders with exposures to these debts (particularly in the coal, steel, manufacturing, cement, shipbuilding, solar, heavy machinery, mining and property sectors) should reassess insolvency risk and understand their options.
The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims, holding that the defendant’s conduct—filing proofs of claim based on time-barred debts—does not violate the FDCPA. SeeIn re Dubois, 2016 WL4474156 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016). In the case, each of the two plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and the defendant filed proofs of claim in the plaintiffs’ cases.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed that a foreclosure action commenced more than six years after the loan was accelerated could still be within the applicable statute of limitations. SeeIn re: Gordon Allen Washington; Gordon Allen Washington v. Bank of New York Mellon, As Tr. for the Certificate-Holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-5, 2016 WL 5827439 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2016). In the case, the borrowed executed a mortgage and promissory note in February 2007.
Particularly in smaller external administrations, the court will not blindly accept time-based remuneration as reflecting the value of the work, but will consider the proportionality of the remuneration.
In a number of recent judgments, the courts appear to be favouring considerations of proportionality coupled with an assessment of the realisations achieved when assessing application for the approval of remuneration for external administrators.
Accolade is a very useful illustration of how a court exercises its discretion when a financier's failure to register its security interests properly was inadvertent.
When will a court exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time for the registration of security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR)? The NSW Supreme Court has given some guidance in In the matter of Accolade Wines Australia Limited and other companies [2016] NSWSC 1023, specifically regarding:
Judge Chapman’s judgment is obviously a welcome development for participants in the structured capital markets, particularly those who transact regularly with US counterparties.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by filing a time-barred proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding. See Nelson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2016 WL 3672073 (8th Cir.