A bankruptcy trustee exercising her or his avoidance powers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code may seek to recover the avoidably transferred property (or its value) from “the initial transferee,” “the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made” and “any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee.”[1] Despite the authorization to seek recovery from multiple sources, “[t]he trustee is entitled to only a sin
Our May 22 post reported on the Supreme Court’s May 20 decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.
为创新经济发展模式、扩大对外开放力度,国家设立大湾区并着力将其打造为充满活力的世界级城市群和内地与港澳深度合作示范区。从定位不难看出,实行充分的市场经济和法治经济,为全国经济发展提供新的引擎和全新的模式,无疑是粤港澳大湾区的重要使命。要完成这一神圣使命,离不开破产重整制度。通过破产重整,挽救那些一时陷入财务困境和经营困境的企业,从而为湾区经济健康发展保驾护航。SX公司通过破产重整涅槃重生,就是破产重整制度保驾护航的典型案例。
一、企业初探:破产重整的机遇与挑战
1、SX公司基本情况
SX公司成立于1981年,于1994年在深交所上市,总股本约35000万股,其中流通股18000万股,限售流通股17000万股。
SX公司控股或参股四家实业公司,分别为科技公司、实业公司、饲料公司和西部公司。
2、SX公司重整受理情况
因不能清偿到期债务,经债权人饲料公司申请,深圳市中级人民法院(下称深圳中院)于2009年11月10日裁定SX公司进入重整程序,并指定北京市金杜(深圳)律师事务所担任管理人。
It always amazes me when, after more than a half-century of Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) jurisprudence, an issue one thinks would arise quite commonly appears never to have been decided in a reported case. Such an issue was recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an adversary proceeding in the Pettit Oil Co. Chapter 7 case.[1]
Can another vain attempt to mitigate a $1.5 billion mistake provide the occasion for a thorough review of the doctrine of earmarking? It did for Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn in the long tail on the General Motors bankruptcy case.
Our January 22, May 23, June 28,
Although it may be difficult to define precisely what an “executory contract” is (with the Bankruptcy Code providing no definition), I think most bankruptcy lawyers feel how the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously felt about obscenity--we know one when we see it. Determining that a patent license was executory in the first place was an issue in the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in RPD Holdings, L.L.C. v.
In hindsight, it seems inevitable that constitutional and other jurisdictional problems would arise when Congress, in enacting the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, created impressive new powers and responsibilities for the bankruptcy courts (along with a considerable degree of independence) but denied them the status of Article III courts under the Constitution (by denying its judges lifetime tenure, as Article III requires). And it didn’t take long for the problems to arise.