De Tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie (“TWTT”) omvat de tijdelijke aanpassing van de wettelijke regeling omtrent turboliquidatie in Boek 2 BW en is gefaseerd in werking getreden op 15 november 2023. De maatregelen die zijn opgenomen in de TWTT zijn van tijdelijke aard en gelden in beginsel voor een periode van twee jaar na de inwerkingtreding, te weten tot 15 november 2025.

Aanleiding en inhoud TWTT

Een turboliquidatie is de ontbinding op eigen initiatief van een rechtspersoon, waarbij – als de rechtspersoon op het tijdstip van ontbinding geen baten heeft – het tijdstip van de ontbinding samenvalt met de beëindiging van de rechtspersoon. In dat geval hoeft er dus niet te worden vereffend, want er zijn geen baten om te vereffenen. Let op: het voorgaande geldt dus ook als de rechtspersoon nog wel lasten heeft.

Op 12 juli 2022 is het wetsvoorstel Tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie (het "wetsvoorstel") ingediend. Het wetvoorstel ziet op de tijdelijke aanpassing van de wettelijke regeling omtrent turboliquidatie en bevindt zich nog in de voorbereidingsfase.

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.

Introduction

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., f/b/o Jerome Guyant, IRA v. Highland Construction Management Services, L.P. et al., Nos. 18-2450-52 (4th Cir. March 17, 2020), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld that a borrower’s indirect economic interests in a limited liability company (LLC) were not assigned to a lender under a conveyance in a security agreement assigning mere membership interests, pursuant to Virginia state law.

Facts

Setoff is a right that allows a creditor to offset a prepetition debt owed to a debtor with its prepetition claim against the debtor.  See In re Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 334 (5th Cir.

Setoff is a right that allows a creditor to offset a prepetition debt owed to a debtor with its prepetition claim against the debtor. See In re Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 334 (5th Cir. 2001). This remedy is aimed at preventing the inequitable and inefficient result that occurs when a creditor is forced to pay a 100% of its prepetition debt owed to a debtor, without resolving its prepetition claim. In such circumstances, the creditor is often forced to later prosecute its unresolved claim against the debtor and is commonly only awarded a fraction of the value of its claim.