In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.
In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina
It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .
I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.
Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.
Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by
State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.
We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.
2019年11月14日,最高院正式发布第九次全国法院民商事审判工作会议的会议纪要——《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》(简称“《九民纪要》”)。
对资产证券化圈的许多机构从业者,《九民纪要》具体有什么样的意义可能不太熟悉。在这里,我们还是借用引言中的一句话来体现它的意义:
“对当前民商事审判工作中的一些疑难法律问题取得了基本一致的看法。”
《九民纪要》的条款中,与金融业务有关的就可以说是包罗万象。但在正式看条款和案例之前,不妨先再来品读一下它的引言部分:
这些统领性原则,结合一些代表性案例,我们认为,会赋予证券化业务更多的司法支持。具体体现在:
Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.