Op 12 november 2020 heeft de Tweede Kamer het wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van de Tijdelijke wet COVID-19 SZW en JenV (35557) als hamerstuk aangenomen. Vandaag, 24 november 2020, is het wetsvoorstel ook door de Eerste Kamer als hamerstuk afgedaan. Het wetvoorstel maakt het mogelijk (in Hoofdstuk 2 Tijdelijke voorziening betalingsuitstel COVID-19) om de rechter te verzoeken:

A legislative proposal to amend the Temporary Act COVID-19 was adopted by the Dutch parliament on 12 November 2020, and adopted by the Dutch Senate on 24 November 2020. The proposal (the COVID-19 Amendment Act) will enter into force shortly and remain in effect until 1 February 2021. This GT Alert summarizes the measures included in COVID-19 Amendment Act Chapter 2 (Temporary measures for the stay on recovery measures COVID-19).

The COVID-19 Amendment Act provides (in Chapter 2) for the possibility of the debtor requesting that the courts, in connection with the pandemic:

In a notable decision interpreting the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama held that Chapter 13 debtors behind on their payments before March 2020 may seek modification of their plan if they suffered from COVID-19 related financial distress.

On Wednesday, November 18, two customers of Cred Inc., a cryptocurrency investment platform currently in Chapter 11, asked Delaware Bankruptcy Judge John T. Dorsey to convert the Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 liquidation (or, in the alternative, to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee “with expertise in hunting down . . . stolen cryptocurrency”). Prior to its Chapter 11 filing, Cred received investor-cryptocurrency, typically in the form of loans, and then purportedly used those funds across a variety of investments to generate favorable returns.

On remand from the Fifth Circuit, in its October 26, 2020, decision in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp.,¹ the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that (1) make-whole premiums are allowed by the Bankruptcy Code under appropriate circumstances and (2) a solvent debtor must pay pos

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.1 1 Winston & Strawn’s Tax Controversy and Litigation Group litigates tax disputes in the bankruptcy courts and works in conjunction with the firm’s Bankruptcy Practice Group. Portions of this article were originally published by the author in 2008.

Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  One of the benefits of bankruptcy court protection is the automatic stay, which will

Bonding companies and debtors can learn an important lesson from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana’s recent opinion on how surety bond claims are treated once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed.

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.^[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).