In our previous bulletin we discussed the ‘safe harbour’ model in the Government’s suggested reforms to the current insolvency laws.
This bulletin considers another of the focus questions in the Proposal Paper: the voiding of ipso facto clauses relating to insolvency events.
Background
On 29 April 2016, the Federal Government released a Proposals Paper titled ‘Improving bankruptcy and insolvency laws’.
The Government is proposing these reforms to encourage entrepreneurship and investment. It hopes to reduce the stigma and detriment around failed business ventures, while still balancing the need to protect creditors.
We have written on other occasions on Civic Partners Sioux City, LLC.
Until recently, In re Atari, Inc. was a closed case, but, in a recent decision, the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York found that “other cause” existed to reopen the bankruptcy cases.
Background
When is a claim contingent? When is a claim subject to a bona fide dispute and who has the burden of proof? When is a claim against a person? When is a claim too small to count? When is an alleged debtor generally not paying his debts as they come due? Are we there yet?
The bankruptcy process is often long and arduous for clients, whether debtor or creditor, and their counsel. Bankruptcy courts feel the pain, too. So, when we finally reach the glorious goal of plan confirmation, most revel in the conclusion of the plan process. Though often considered anathema, appeals of plan confirmation orders are sometimes pursued. Recognizing the public policy desire for finality in bankruptcy proceedings, the Eighth Circuit applies the “person-aggrieved” doctrine in determining whether an appellant has standing to appeal a plan confirmation or
Rare is the decision finding that bid rigging occurred. Recently, though, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut uncovered a bid rigging scheme in connection with the sale of property in a Canadian arrangement proceeding. In re Sagecrest II LLC, et al., Case No. 08-50754 (Bankr. D. Conn. Dec.
Where a court has ordered the winding-up of a company, a shareholder may be able to have the winding up terminated under section 482 of the Corporations Act 2001.
Relevant factors
The power of the court to terminate a winding-up is discretionary. Relevant factors to be considered, which are not exhaustive, include the following: