U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." It has been generally understood that recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 15 is a prerequisite to a U.S. court enforcing, under the doctrine of comity, an order or judgment entered in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding or a provision in foreign bankruptcy law applicable to a debtor in such a proceeding.
はじめに
ケイマン諸島と香港の裁判所は、この数ヶ月、ケイマン諸島の会社を再編することを目的とするクロスボーダーの申立てについて、関連する法域における裁判所がどのようにこれを処理するのか実用的な方向性を示しました。これは、国際礼譲および修正された普遍主義の原則に沿ったものです。
裁判所のスタート地点
手続が一つ以上のコモンローの法域で開始されたが、清算人の任命が未了の場合、裁判所が修正された普遍主義を適用するためのスタート地点は、倒産の主手続の役割を担うのはどの法域がより適当かということを考えることでしょう。最近の香港およびケイマン諸島の両地域の裁判例では、長年の先例に沿いながら、通常この法域とは会社の設立地であることを確認しました。なぜならば投資家やサービス・プロバイダーおよび債権者が通常関係しているからであり、とりわけ、会社の登録された営業所であったり、その取締役会の義務やその定款を規定する法律の地であるからです。
The Situation: In Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed that certain types of private student loans are not "obligation[s] to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend" that are exempt from discharge in bankruptcy absent an undue hardship.
In cases under both chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and its repealed predecessor, section 304, U.S. bankruptcy courts have routinely recognized and enforced orders of foreign bankruptcy and insolvency courts as a matter of international comity. However, U.S. bankruptcy courts sometimes disagree over the precise statutory authority for granting such relief, because the provisions of chapter 15 are not particularly clear on this point in all cases.
Introduction
The Grand Court has recently provided helpful clarification as to the appropriate test to be applied when a dispute arises over the identity of the insolvency practitioners proposed to be appointed by a creditor or the company. In Global Fidelity Bank Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation)[1] the Court confirmed the 3-stage test for determining independence and that in applying the test, significant weight should be afforded to the views of the creditors.
Background
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. __ (2021), that a creditor in possession of a debtor's property does not violate the automatic stay, specifically section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, by retaining the property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. The Court's decision provides important guidance to bankruptcy courts, practitioners, and parties on the scope of the automatic stay's requirements.
Introduction
Good-Faith Defense to Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers
Stockbroker Liquidations Under SIPA
Madoff
The Second Circuit's Ruling
Outlook
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. __ (2021), that a creditor in possession of a debtor's property does not violate the automatic stay, specifically section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, by retaining the property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. The Court's decision provides important guidance to bankruptcy courts, practitioners, and parties on the scope of the automatic stay's requirements.