On 23 May 2018, New York’s Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department (an intermediate appellate court covering a vast swath of “downstate” New York) decided Soroush v. Citimortgage, Inc. – a closely watched case that many in the industry worried would decide the fate of “de-acceleration letters.” De-acceleration letters are commonly used by loan servicers as a tool to revive aged defaulted mortgage loans that otherwise would be in danger of becoming time-barred.
Another step towards a lender-friendly environment, but the new form of pledge is being delayed
The Italian Parliament passed law No. 155 of 19 October 2017 to delegate the Government to reform the rules on insolvency and financial distress. This has been commented widely in the press and between commentantors, as it is expected to bring about significant developments (we have previously reported here).
What has received less attention, is that the law also mandates Government to reorganise the system of legal priorities (privilegi), i.e. the rights of preference set out at law for given claims to have preference over other creditors. Further, the delegation includes the authority to introduce a form of non-possessory security over moveable assets. Continue Reading Italy to revamp the system of legal priorities, and introduce non-possessory security
In a decision that will be welcomed both by second-ranking secured creditors and by administrators, the Court of Appeal recently held that a second-ranking floating charge (SRFC) was still capable of being a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 despite the earlier crystallisation of a prior-ranking floating charge (PRFC). In addition, the SRFC was capable of being enforceable notwithstanding the fact that there were no assets of the chargor which were not covered by the PRFC. Accordingly, the appointment of administrators by the holder of the SRFC was valid. Case: Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd v Wilson  EWCA Civ 1001
In the recent case of Kevin Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd and others, the UK High Court decided that the exercise of existing rights by a secured creditor should not be regarded as a disposal by a defendant, and as a result, enforcement by a secured creditor is not an infringement of a freezing order. The High Court also clarified that it is not necessary for a secured creditor to bring an application for variation of the freezing order.