Már Magyarországon is elindítható a szerkezetátalakítási eljárás, amelynek célja az életképes vállalkozások nehézségeinek kezelése és a fizetésképtelenség megelőzése. A DLA Piper Hungary szakmai eseményén jogi és gazdasági oldalról egyaránt megvilágították a szakértők az új eljárás részleteit és előnyeit, valamint arra is kitértek, hogy a megváltozott külső körülmények milyen iparági szereplőket állítottak igazán komoly kihívások elé.

A Bírósági Határozatok Gyűjteményében közzétett Gfv.VII.30.365/2020/5. számú határozatában a Kúria arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy az adós és a hitelező közötti szerződés felszámoló általi, Cstv. 47. § (1) bekezdés szerinti felmondása nem jogellenes, ebből következően az adóssal szemben a szerződés alapján a felmondás tényére tekintettel kártérítési igény nem érvényesíthető. A kártérítési felelősség megállapítására ugyanis jogellenes magatartás hiányában nem kerülhet sor.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.

Due to the severe economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, the Hungarian Government adopted Government Decree 249/2020 (28 May) that introduced certain amendments to Act XLIX of 1991 on Bankruptcy and Liquidation Proceedings.

One of the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code is to ensure that each class of creditors is treated equally. And one of the ways that is accomplished is to allow the debtor’s estate to claw back certain pre-petition payments made to creditors. Accordingly, creditors of a debtor who files for bankruptcy are often unpleasantly surprised to learn that they may be forced to relinquish “preferential” payments they received before the bankruptcy filing.