On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in PEM Entities v. Levin to decide whether bankruptcy courts should apply a federal multi-factor test or an underlying state law when deciding whether to re-characterize a debt claim as equity. The Court’s decision to grant cert in this case should resolve a circuit split and clarify the law as it relates to re-characterizing corporate debt as equity.

One of the primary reasons that most debtors seek bankruptcy relief is the automatic stay, which prevents creditors from pursuing collection efforts outside of the bankruptcy proceedings. Creditors can, however, seek relief from the automatic stay from the bankruptcy court under certain circumstances.

On 1 July 2017 a new amendment to the Czech Insolvency Act came into force. One of the most significant changes introduced by the amendment relates to the assessment of insolvency of the debtor, performed by means of the cash-flow insolvency test.

Under Czech law, the debtor is insolvent if it has several creditors, due and payable debts for more than 30 days, and it is not able to fulfill them.

What happens in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case when a creditor files a proof of claim involving a debt for which the statute of limitations to collect the debt has run? More specifically, does the filing of such a claim violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”)? That’s the issue considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson. 1

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit (the “Court”) considered the issue of asset “abandonment” in a Chapter 7 case[1]. The Court reversed the bankruptcy court’s decision to allow the Chapter 7 trustee to compromise a claim that the debtor argued the trustee had abandoned.

Background

In the case of Susan G. Brown v. Douglas Ellmann [1], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision to deny a Chapter 7 debtor’s proposed exemptions for the value of redemption rights she enjoyed under Michigan law related to the sale of a property she surrendered to the bankruptcy estate.

Background

A significant amendment to the Czech Insolvency Act will take effect on 1 July 2017. It has been stated that the main aim of the amendment is to introduce measures against so called “insolvency mafia” and regulate consultancy services providers in connection with solving personal debts. The amendment brings changes to rules for personal bankruptcies, which are to be solved through a discharge from debts.

Many bankruptcy cases involve adversary proceedings in which creditors seek to have certain debts deemed nondischargeable. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “District Court”) recently considered, on appeal, whether the Bankruptcy Court properly held that a debt owed by a debtor (the “Debtor”) to the State of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (the “Agency”) is dischargeable in a Chapter 13 case.1

On September 9, 2016, Citibank’s London Branch filed a claim as collateral agent for the bondholders of New World Resources (NWR) with the High Court in Ostrava in the insolvency proceedings of OKD. OKD owns seven coal mines in the Czech Republic, employing over 13000 people. The low cost of coal and the refusal of the Czech Government to bail it out led to OKD filing for a Czech restructuring process in May 2016.

While bankruptcy relief is available as a tool for individuals to discharge debts, it is not available to everyone, under all circumstances. Before a debtor can, for example, discharge debts in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he or she must prove that debts and income are within certain statutory thresholds. When determining whether an individual is eligible for relief, the nature of the debts at issue is also relevant.