Discharge-for-value defense: Difference between revisions

Discharge-for-value defense (view source)

Revision as of 13:49, 19 February 2021

675 bytes added , 19 February 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 In that case, say a debtor owes a creditor £100, and then pays such a payment, again, sensible practice and custom would be to allow the creditor to treat that amount as satisfying that debt. This is not, really, a defense to an action in restitution so much as the operation of basic principles of [[set-off]]. It would be perverse indeed, and frivolous, for a debtor to try to claw back funds it was going to have to pay in the next week or so anyway.
-This is quite different from the scenario where the [[creditor]] and [[debtor]] have an agreed [[term loan]] payable in, say, 25 years. You know, like a mortgage. Often it will be a condition of the [[mortgage]] that the borrower’s salary is paid into an account at the same bank. If the discharge-for-value defense operates as interpreted in {{casenote|Citigroup|Brigade Capital Management}}, the bank could apply the borrower’s total salary in retirement of the [[principal]] on the loan, notwithstanding the principal amortisation schedule in the [[mortgage]] loan, and refuse to let the borrower have any money to pay her bills. That is plainly potty.
+But the court went further than that. It could find no authority to support the argument that the [[debt]] needed to be immediately ''due'': it just needed to be a bona fide ''debt'':
+{{quote|In sum, the court concludes that the recipient of funds need not show that an outstanding debt was “due” when it received the funds in order to invoke the discharge-for-value defense. Instead, it is sufficient for the party invoking the defense to show that, at the time the funds were received, it was a bonafide creditor. Defendantsmeetthatburdenheregiven their Non-Returning Lender clients’ undisputed interests in the 2016 Term Loan on August 11, 2020.}}
+This, I submit, is on-its-face bonkers. Take the scenario where the [[creditor]] and [[debtor]] have an agreed [[term loan]] payable in, say, 25 years. You know, like a mortgage. Often it will be a condition of the [[mortgage]] that the borrower’s salary is paid into an account at the same bank. If the discharge-for-value defense operates as interpreted in {{casenote|Citigroup|Brigade Capital Management}}, the bank could apply the borrower’s total salary in retirement of the [[principal]] on the loan, notwithstanding the principal amortisation schedule in the [[mortgage]] loan, and refuse to let the borrower have any money to pay her bills. That is plainly potty.
 In any case, I bet Citi wished they were English.