Fulltext Search

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

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).

上一篇我们谈到诉讼主体的确定问题,本文将从担保的视角对债券持有人的权利救济予以分析。

保证人单方出具《保证函》的效力

任何在中国内地(“”)注册成立的企业,如不能清偿到期债务,并且资产不足以清偿全部债务或者明显缺乏清偿能力的,可由该企业或其债权人(“”)提交破产申请,继而根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》(“《破产法》”)对该企业发起破产法律程序。但是,长期以来,备受业内人士诟病的是,中国法院迟迟未对破产申请实施立案登记制度。在此背景下,最高人民法院(“”)于2016年7月颁布指导通知[1](“《2016年最高院通知》”),旨在简化和规范登记破产案件的立案受理工作。

最高院通知:优化立案程序

In In re KB Toys Inc.,1 the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the holdings of the lower courts that claims subject to disallowance under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code are “similarly disallowable in the hands of the subsequent transferee.” According to the Third Circuit, when a creditor owes property to the estate, until that property is returned to the estate, that creditor’s claim, regardless of who holds it, is impaired, and the subsequent sale of that c

On May 4, 2012, the Delaware bankruptcy court inIn re KB Toys, Inc., et al. (KB Toys), handed down a thoughtful decision addressing the issue of whether impairments attach to a claim or remain with its seller. The KB Toys court held that “a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant. Disabilities attach to and travel with the claim.”