Fulltext Search

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.

In the latest chapter of more than a decade of litigation involving efforts to recover fictitious profits paid to certain customers of Bernard Madoff's defunct brokerage firm as part of the largest Ponzi scheme in history, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 976 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.

对于《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》(下称“《民法典担保解释》新规”)对金融资管业务的影响,我们在上篇及中篇中从担保物权受托持有、增信文件性质、上市公司对外担保、担保物权登记、抵押预告登记等角度进行了详细探析。本篇我们将从资产收益权回购交易、仲裁与申请实现担保物权程序、担保与破产衔接角度,着重介绍新规的修订及对金融资管业务的影响。择重点概括如下:

一、新规明确特定资产或资产收益权转让及回购交易中让与担保规则的处理方法

In Short

The Situation: Circuit courts were split on whether mere retention by a creditor of estate property violates the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question inCity of Chicago v. Fulton, in which the City of Chicago had refused to return debtors' vehicles after they filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee to avoid certain transfers of a debtor's property and to recover the property or its value from the transferees is an essential tool in maximizing the value of a bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, a ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit could, if followed by other courts, curtail a trustee's avoidance and recovery powers. In Rajala v. Spencer Fane LLP (In re Generation Resources Holding Co.), 964 F.3d 958 (10th Cir. 2020), reh'g denied, No.

The practice of conferring "derivative standing" on official creditors' committees to assert claims on behalf of a bankruptcy estate in cases where the debtor or a bankruptcy trustee is unwilling or unable to do so is a well-established means of generating value for the estate from litigation recoveries. However, in a series of recent decisions, the Delaware bankruptcy courts have limited the practice in cases where applicable non-bankruptcy state law provides that creditors do not have standing to bring claims on behalf of certain entities.

合伙型基金退出时,合伙人之间可能因存在争议而无法自行组建清算组或虽然组成清算组却无法顺利完成清算。这便引发合伙型基金可否通过法院程序进行司法清算的问题。我们曾代理过一起非常罕见的合伙型基金司法清算的案件,开创上海市指定第三人担任基金清算组负责人的先例,案件在其他诸多方面都在上海地区乃至全国具有领先地位和创新意义。

所谓司法清算,亦即强制清算,是相对于企业自行清算而言,一般是指法院介入合伙型基金清算程序的制度,可以是法院组建清算组,也可能是法院监督清算程序,亦或当清算出现障碍时请求法院排除妨碍等。针对公司的强制清算,最高人民法院出台了《最高人民法院关于适用中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定(二)》(以下简称“《公司法司法解释(二)》”)及《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》(以下简称“《公司强清纪要》”)。但有关合伙型基金的清算尚无较为全面和细致的立法体系,因此,合伙型基金通过司法方式进行强制清算的先例很少,且争议颇多。

The Situation: In the past few weeks, due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 crisis on non-essential businesses forced to close and terminate employees after filing for chapter 11 protection, bankruptcy courts have been confronted with requests by debtors to temporarily suspend their bankruptcy cases using the courts' equitable powers and a seldom-used provision of the Bankruptcy Code: 11 U.S.C. § 305(a).