Introduction
Perhaps not unexpectedly, on February 25, 2021, a New York bankruptcy court dismissed the involuntary bankruptcy petition brought earlier in the month by three student loan borrowers against Navient Solutions (see our prior post on the borrowers’ petition here). Navient is the student loan servicing arm of Navient Corporation, one of the world’s largest student loan-originators.
Just after 5:00 p.m. Central Time on February 23, 2021, Belk, Inc. and its affiliates filed chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, along with a proposed “prepackaged” plan of reorganization. Before midnight, the US Trustee objected to Belk’s plan, and, by 8:00 a.m. the next day, the parties were in court to decide plan confirmation. Two hours later, Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur confirmed the plan, and it became effective that afternoon, just 20 hours after the Chapter 11 cases were filed.
On February 8, 2021, three student loan borrowers filed an involuntary petition against Navient Solutions LLC in New York bankruptcy court seeking to force Navient into bankruptcy.[1] Navient Solutions is the loan servicing arm of Navient Corporation, a student loan originator which manages approximately $300 billion in student loan debt for more than 12 million borrowers.
In a January 2021 decision issued in the re-opened United Refining Company1 bankruptcy case, Judge Lopez of the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court addressed when a tort claim is deemed to arise for purposes
The National Rifle Association (“NRA”), along with its wholly owned Texas subsidiary, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on January 15, 2021 in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case already has presented several threshold issues and challenges that are of interest to both bankruptcy practitioners and the market as a whole.
Background
Section 546(e) of the US Bankruptcy Code, which Congress enacted to promote stability and finality in financial markets, provides a safe harbor against the avoidance of certain securities transactions. Since the safe harbor’s inclusion in the original Bankruptcy Code, Congress repeatedly has expanded its protections to a growing assortment of financial transactions involving an increasing array of parties, whose involvement in the transaction may give rise to a defense to certain avoidance actions, including constructive fraudulent transfer claims.
引言\
香港法例第 485 章《強制性公積金計劃條例》規定,僱員及僱主均須在強制性公積金計劃 (「強積金」)作出強制性供款,違例的僱主即屬犯罪,而強制性公積金計劃管理局(「積金 局」)可提出法律程序追討強制性供款。最近在 Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 一案中,法院探討了公司在清盤開始後支付的尚欠強制性強積金供款,是否可獲 法院認可。
背景
經營建築服務的新昌營造廠有限公司(「該公司」)正在進行清盤。2018 年 2 月起,該公司 偶然未能為其僱員作出強制性強積金供款。積金局對該公司提出民事訴訟,並在該公司沒有抗 辯下就四項申索取得勝訴,可討回 2018 年 3 至 9 月的未付強積金供款合共港幣 958 萬元。
引言
香港法例第 485 章《强制性公积金计划条例》规定,雇员及雇主均须在强制性公积金计划 (「强积金」)作出强制性供款,违例的雇主即属犯罪,而强制性公积金计划管理局(「积金 局」)可提出法律程序追讨强制性供款。最近在 Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 一案中,法院探讨了公司在清盘开始后支付的尚欠强制性强积金供款,是否可获 法院认可。
背景
经营建筑服务的新昌营造厂有限公司(「该公司」)正在进行清盘。2018 年 2 月起,该公司 偶然未能为其雇员作出强制性强积金供款。积金局对该公司提出民事诉讼,并在该公司没有抗 辩下就四项申索取得胜诉,可讨回 2018 年 3 至 9 月的未付强积金供款合共港币 958 万元。