In a recent decision out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia, a court analyzed the effect of a setoff effectuated between two governmental units in the 90 days prior to the filing of a husband and wife’s bankruptcy case. In Hurt v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (In re Hurt), 579 B.R. 765 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2017), the court addressed competing motions for summary judgment filed by the debtors, on the one hand, and the U.S.

Summary

The regulations governing personal insolvency in Austria will change on 1 November 2017. Whilst generally the regulations remain somewhat the same, some key debtor-friendly amendments have been effected.

The changes primarily concern mandatory quotas as well as the duration of the proceedings.

The following is an outline of the ‘new’ Austrian insolvency proceedings for natural persons.

Phase one – payment schedule

In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding, 580 U.S. __(2017), decided on March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, without the consent of impaired creditors, a bankruptcy court cannot approve a "structured dismissal" that provides for distributions deviating from the ordinary priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. The ruling reverses the decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S.

The immediate effect of Jevic will be that practitioners may no longer structure dismissals in any manner that deviates from the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of impaired creditors.

Summary

A recent ruling from the Austrian Supreme Court concerning the liability of auditors in damages for providing an unqualified opinion on an insolvent debtor.

Legal Background

Pursuant to sec. 275 para 2 of the Austrian Commercial Code auditors are liable for damages caused by negligent (or intentional) violation of their duty to perform audits impartially and diligently. The liability is capped at EUR 2 mill. for audit of smaller companies.

Facts of the Case

In today's low interest rate environment, the difference between a contractual interest rate and the federal judgment rate can be quite significant. It is not surprising, therefore, that this issue has become hotly litigated in cases involving solvent Chapter 11 debtors. Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Colfin Bulls Funding A v. Paloian (In re Dvorkin Holdings), 547 B.R. 880 (N.D. Ill.

Background

Creditors of an insolvent entity file their claims against the entity with the insolvency administrator (Germany) or insolvency court (Austria). If a claim is accepted, it is registered in the insolvency table as an accepted claim and the creditor is listed as an insolvency creditor in the insolvency proceedings.

Puerto Rico is in the midst of a ­financial crisis. Over the past few years, its public debt skyrocketed while its government revenue sharply declined. In order to address its economic problems and to avoid mass public-worker layoffs and cuts in public services, the unincorporated U.S. territory issued billions of dollars in face value of municipal bonds. These bonds were readily saleable to investors in the United States due to their tax-exempt status and comparatively high yields.

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, Case No. 15-145.

Adding to the unsettled body of case law on the enforceability of prepetition waivers of the automatic stay, on April 27, 2016, the U.S.