When a debtor files for bankruptcy, almost all proceedings to recover property from the debtor are automatically stayed by force of law. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). This provision, known as the automatic stay, is a central feature of the bankruptcy process, but uncertainty remains about aspects of its scope.

When a party files for bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code imposes an automatic stay of litigation against a debtor for claims arising prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Where there is a basis for bankruptcy jurisdiction in federal court, federal law also permits parties to a state court action to remove the state court action to the federal district court for the district in which the state court action is pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).

Control to Serbian Creditors- the amendments to the Serbian Insolvency Act

The recent amendments to the Serbian Insolvency Act enacted 9 December 2018 have placed more control into creditors’ hands allowing them to suggest the insolvency administrator to be appointed, as well as providing less restrictive provisions on the proposers of reorganisation proposals.

Fraudulent transfer law allows creditors and bankruptcy trustees, under certain circumstances, to sue transferees to recover funds received where a debtor’s transfers to the transferees actually or constructively defrauded its creditors. Under both the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act adopted by most states and the fraudulent transfer action created by federal bankruptcy law, a transferee of an alleged fraudulent transfer may assert a defense from such liability by establishing that it received the transfer in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value. See 11 U.S.C.

SINGAPORE INSOLVENCY, RESTRUCTURING AND DISSOLUTION BILL PASSED 

On 1 October 2018, The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill was passed in Singapore. 

This will consolidate personal and corporate insolvency laws into the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, with the Bankruptcy Act to be repealed and the relevant corporate insolvency provisions in the Companies Act being removed. 

In a recent landmark cross border decision the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court clarified that general managers cannot rely on their Directors and Officers Liability Insurance cover (D&O) in the event of a claim for repayment under Germany's "wrongful trading" legislation. 

Providing cover for the directors and officers of a company or the company itself, D&O insurance provides reimbursement in the event the insured suffers loss as a result of legal action brought for alleged wrongful acts of the directors and officers.  

On 26 August the UK Government announced its intention to introduce radical reforms to insolvency law in the catchily named consultation paper "Insolvency and Corporate Governance – Government Response". Despite the 82 pages, the government kept their cards relatively close to their chest choosing not to reveal their big plans but with suggestions about the reforms ahead to "enable more companies not only to survive, but to thrive".

The Department for BEIS has recently published a consultation to the UK's insolvency and corporate governance landscape including significant proposals to extend the liability of directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries. 

When a bankruptcy petition is filed, an automatic stay comes into effect staying proceedings against the debtor or the debtor’s property. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The stay centralizes litigation regarding the debtor and its property in the debtor’s bankruptcy case. When contract entered into pre-bankruptcy contains an arbitration clause, a bankruptcy court will consider if the stay should be enforced or if the parties can resolve the matter in arbitration. In In re Argon Credit, LLC, No. 16-39654 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept.

Bankruptcy plans often include provisions releasing debtors and their officers and directors from certain potential liability. In Zardinovsky v. Arctic Glacier Income Fund, No. 17-2522 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that such a provision bound shareholders who purchased the shares after confirmation, as to post-confirmation claims including securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.