The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
Introduction
Introduction - はじめに
2016年破産倒産法は、清算時における債権者の債務弁済を実現する仕組みを提供します。また、有担保債権者は優先的な債権回収が可能です。しかしながら、State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd.（Rainbow Papers Judgement）において、これを覆す判決が下されました。2003 年の Gujarat Value Added Tax Act（GVAT法）に基づいて発生する税金の請求について、政府に有利に設定された「担保権」により、税務当局は法の下の「有担保債権者」である、と判示したのです。再建計画が政府への法定納付金を除外している場合、法規定に準拠しているとは言えず、政府に対する拘束力は持たない、としました。
当該最高裁判所の判決は、破産倒産法の下の法定公課決済の優先順位という側面において、大きな懸念を抱かせるものとなりました。今回の記事では、当該判決が、破産倒産法の本来の目的およびその他の各種判例とどのように対照的であるかについて考察し、解説しています。
Brief facts - 概要
Introduction
Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons.
To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.
One year ago, we wrote that, unlike in 2019, when the large business bankruptcy landscape was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the narrative in 2020. The pandemic may not have been responsible for every reversal of corporate fortune in 2020, but it weighed heavily on the scale, particularly for companies in the energy, retail, restaurant, entertainment, health care, travel, and hospitality industries.
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that ruling, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr.