Am 4. Februar 2025 wurde der neueste Entwurf des geänderten Konkursgesetzes („Entwurf“) vom Obersten Volksgerichtshof („SPC“) zur öffentlichen Stellungnahme veröffentlicht. Der Entwurf soll das geltende Konkursgesetz Nr. 51/2014/QH13 vom 19. Juni 2014 („Konkursgesetz 2014“) ersetzen und führt mehrere wesentliche Änderungen ein, die sich auf die Konkursverfahren auswirken können, die auf der Umsetzung des Konkursgesetzes 2014 ab seinem Inkrafttreten bis heute basieren. Die erste Frist für öffentliche Stellungnahmen läuft bis zum 25.

Le 4 février 2025, le dernier projet de loi amendée sur la faillite (« le Projet de loi ») a été publié par la Cour populaire suprême (« CPS ») pour consultation publique. Le Projet de loi est censé remplacer la loi actuelle sur la faillite n°51/2014/QH13 du 19 juin 2024 (« Loi sur la faillite de 2014 ») et introduit plusieurs changements significatifs qui pourraient impacter les procédures de faillite, se basant sur la mise en œuvre de la Loi sur la faillite de 2014 depuis son entrée en vigueur.

On 4 February 2025, the latest Draft of the Amended Law on Bankruptcy (“Draft”) was published by the People’s Supreme Court (“SPC”) for public comments. The Draft is prepared to supersede the current Law on Law on Bankruptcy No. 51/2014/QH13 dated 19 June 2014 (“Bankruptcy Law 2014”) and introduces several significant changes that may impact the bankruptcy procedures based on the implementation of the Bankruptcy Law 2014 from its effective date until now.

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Introduction

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?

A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.

A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.

The issue of whether directors, officers, and/or shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to a company prior to bankruptcy is commonly litigated in chapter 11 cases, as creditors look to additional sources for recovery, such as D&O insurance or “deep-pocket” shareholders, including private equity firms. The recent decision in In re AMC Investors, LLC, 637 B.R. 43 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) provides a helpful reminder of the importance of timing in bringing such claims and the use by defendants of affirmative defenses to defeat those claims.

There is a common misconception that lender liability is a thing of the past. However, a recent decision provides a warning to lenders that they can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a debtor’s business affairs.