The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the CAA), which President Trump signed into law on December 27, 2020, amends several provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. While a number of the amendments are applicable only to small businesses (e.g., businesses eligible to file under the new small-business subchapter of the Bankruptcy Code and/or businesses eligible to receive PPP loans), several others have more general application, as discussed below.
* * *
Amendments of More General Application
On 3 December 2020, the UK Government (HM Treasury) issued a consultation paper (the Consultation) setting out a proposal to implement a new “special administration regime” (the SAR) which it is proposed would apply to any insolvency of an authorised payment institution (a PI) or electronic money institution (an EMI).
On 3 December 2020, HM Treasury published the Government's proposal to implement a new special administration regime for PIs and EMIs (PI and EMI SAR), a copy of which can be seen here.
Gerade im Anbetracht der aus der Corona-Pandemie folgenden Krise stellt sich die Frage: Was passiert mit Token in der Insolvenz, insbesondere, wenn sie von einem Dienstleister für seine Kunden verwahrt werden?
Especially in view of the crisis resulting from the Coronavirus pandemic, the question arises: What happens to tokens in insolvency, especially if they are held in safekeeping by a service provider for his customers?
Als Teil des gesetzgeberischen Maßnahmenpakets zur Abmilderung der wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie erleichtert das COVID-19-Insolvenzaussetzungsgesetz (COVInsAG) die rechtssichere Finanzierung kriselnder Unternehmen und setzt Anreize an deren Gesellschafterkreise: der Nachrang von Gesellschafterdarlehen und das Erfordernis eines Sanierungsgutachtens sind durch das COVInsAG suspendiert.
In the United States, in a typical plain vanilla lending arrangement, if a counterparty files for bankruptcy, an automatic stay of enforcement actions is imposed that would prevent a lender from (i) foreclosing on the property of the debtor, (ii) terminating contracts with the debtor, (iii) commencing or continuing certain enforcement actions against the debtor or its property and/or (iv) setting off amounts owed under such arrangements (in each case unless a motion is filed and granted in the related bankruptcy case).
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND