On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in PEM Entities v. Levin to decide whether bankruptcy courts should apply a federal multi-factor test or an underlying state law when deciding whether to re-characterize a debt claim as equity. The Court’s decision to grant cert in this case should resolve a circuit split and clarify the law as it relates to re-characterizing corporate debt as equity.

On 25 April 2017, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a decree approving the Law on Amendments to the Bankruptcy Law (the Amendments).

The Amendments incorporate the definition of related parties to the debtor in accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the Civil Code). The related parties include the persons described in Article 49-1.1 of the Civil Code as well as individuals dismissed from the debtor’s management bodies within one year prior to the beginning of bankruptcy.

One of the primary reasons that most debtors seek bankruptcy relief is the automatic stay, which prevents creditors from pursuing collection efforts outside of the bankruptcy proceedings. Creditors can, however, seek relief from the automatic stay from the bankruptcy court under certain circumstances.

What happens in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case when a creditor files a proof of claim involving a debt for which the statute of limitations to collect the debt has run? More specifically, does the filing of such a claim violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”)? That’s the issue considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson. 1

On 25 April 2017, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a decree approving the Law on Amendments to the Bankruptcy Law (the Amendments).

The Amendments incorporate the definition of related parties to the debtor in accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the Civil Code). The related parties include the persons described in Article 49-1.1 of the Civil Code as well as individuals dismissed from the debtor's management bodies within one year prior to the beginning of bankruptcy.

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit (the “Court”) considered the issue of asset “abandonment” in a Chapter 7 case[1]. The Court reversed the bankruptcy court’s decision to allow the Chapter 7 trustee to compromise a claim that the debtor argued the trustee had abandoned.

Background

In the case of Susan G. Brown v. Douglas Ellmann [1], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision to deny a Chapter 7 debtor’s proposed exemptions for the value of redemption rights she enjoyed under Michigan law related to the sale of a property she surrendered to the bankruptcy estate.

Background

On 7 April 2017, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a decree (the Decree) approving significant amendments to the Law On Banks dated 16 January 2004 (the Amendments) and relating to local banks experiencing financial difficulties.

Financial Rehabilitation

Many bankruptcy cases involve adversary proceedings in which creditors seek to have certain debts deemed nondischargeable. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “District Court”) recently considered, on appeal, whether the Bankruptcy Court properly held that a debt owed by a debtor (the “Debtor”) to the State of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (the “Agency”) is dischargeable in a Chapter 13 case.1

While bankruptcy relief is available as a tool for individuals to discharge debts, it is not available to everyone, under all circumstances. Before a debtor can, for example, discharge debts in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he or she must prove that debts and income are within certain statutory thresholds. When determining whether an individual is eligible for relief, the nature of the debts at issue is also relevant.