Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1 was implemented to protect debtors from unanticipated deficiencies in residential mortgage payments following a chapter 13 discharge, and the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s recent opinion in In re Feliciano Figueroa[1] illustrates how detrimental the rule can be to inattentive mortgage holders.
In its top consumer credit law decisions of 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that settlement of an FDCPA claim does not trigger an attorney fee award, examined third-party contact as a “communication” under the FDCPA, and ruled there was no “partial surrender” of collateral in a Chapter 13 plan.
Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 993 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2021)
Good afternoon.
Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of December 27, 2021. There were only two substantive civil decisions released this week.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 went into effect December 1, 2011. It was implemented to address a perceived problem in “cure and maintain” Chapter 13 cases (cases in which the debtor cures any pre-petition arrearage and maintains monthly post-petition payments on long-term loans) – that mortgage creditors were not providing the debtor with notice of post-petition payment changes and fees assessed post-petition, causing debtors to often exit a successful Chapter 13 with a delinquent loan.
Temat informatyzacji postępowań sądowych jest w Polsce obecny niezmiennie już od wielu lat. Środowiska prawnicze są w zasadzie zgodne co do tego, że zmiany w tym zakresie są konieczne i powinny nastąpić jak najszybciej[1]. Jako główne zalety informatyzacji postępowań wskazuje się uproszczenie procedur, minimalizację kosztów oraz oszczędność czasu.
Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT cannot adjudicate contractual dispute if termination of contract is based on grounds unrelated to Corporate Debtor's insolvency The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgement dated November 23, 2021, in the matter of TATA Consultancy Services Limited v.
The European distressed market has been quiet this year. This is a function of ongoing government support, supportive sponsors and lenders, and a huge amount of liquidity in the market. Many companies which we and our clients identified as potential restructuring candidates have managed to complete successful refinancing transactions and have avoided the restructuring negotiation table.
In a split decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently determined that the Bank of New York Mellon (the “Bank”), as first deed of trust lienholder, could challenge a homeowner’s association’s (“HOA”) sale of a property as a violation of an automatic bankruptcy stay, giving the Bank superior title. SeeBank of New York Mellon as Tr. for Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Tr. 2005-54CB, Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-54CB v. Enchantment at Sunset Bay Condo. Ass’n, 2 F.4th 1229 (9th Cir. 2021).
This recent interlocutory decision in The Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals (" the DGF") v Bank Frick & Co AG ("Bank Frick") & Anor deals another blow to the DGF in its recent attempts to pursue claims in England which allegedly arise following the 2014-15 banking crisis in Ukraine.
Background
Elizabeth McColm, Brian Bolin and Grace Hotz, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary