Key Points:

There are various issues of which a secured creditor must be aware in seeking to either comply with its obligations or take steps to enforce a mortgage under the Act.

Victoria's new Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011 (Vic) commenced operation on 1 December 2011 and is largely modelled on the equivalent New South Wales legislation, the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW).

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that — despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements — the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court order denying a bank’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that when a debtor seeks to enforce a discharge injunction, a bankruptcy court may decline to compel arbitration because it implicates a bankruptcy court’s ability to enforce its own orders.

A copy of the opinion in Henry v. Educational Financial Service is available at: Link to Opinion.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the decision of the Appellate Court, and held that a settlement that a borrower and a lender reached during mediation pursuant to the Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program was enforceable because the borrower fulfilled all contingent terms making the agreement permanent. 

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

A recent TCC decision highlights the dangers of withholding payment against contractors with a view to pushing them into insolvency. The court allowed the recovery of insolvency professional fees as well as a substantial sum reflecting a reduced settlement reached with a third party on a separate project. The court’s decision has ramifications for any party seeking to withhold large payments under a construction contract against a party who is likely to suffer serious cash-flow pressure as a result.

Annual Review of English Construction Law Developments May 2017 An international perspective CMS_LawTax_CMYK_28-100.eps Contents 3 Introduction 5 The interpretation of exclusion and limitation clauses: clarity restored 9 Good faith in the exercise of termination rights 13 Concurrent delay: recent developments and continued uncertainty 19 Contractual warranties and representations: telling the difference 23 On demand securities: the fraud exception in cases of legal uncertainty 31 On-demand securities: compliance with formalities and the doctrine of strict performance 37 Indirect and consequ

Issue 6 | April 2017 Disputes Digest 2 | Disputes Digest Corporate counsel’s guide to the key cases of 2016 (litigation) Corporate counsel’s guide to the key cases of 2016 (arbitration) Singapore targets effi ciency in investment arbitration proceedings Does the MasterCard class action mark the dawn of a new era in UK litigation?

1. Applicable Law

1.1.1 Interim measures in Scotland are governed partly by court procedure rules and partly by statutory provisions. The relevant court procedures are determined by:   

• the nature of the interim measure sought; and
• the court from which the interim measure is sought.

1.1.2 There are two levels of court which may grant interim measures in civil proceedings, namely:   

Summary

On 14 October 2015, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision that two payments had been made in breach of a freezing order. The order prohibited the respondent to the freezing injunction application from dealing with or disposing of any of its assets other than in the ordinary and proper course of business. The Court held that the judge at first instance had taken too narrow a view in construing this exception and that, in light of the specific facts of the case, the freezing order had not been breached.