Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and Federal Rule 58 can sometimes look like this. Carolina and Khaled have a much simpler solution.

When can a Federal Court employ a federal common law rule to make its decision in the case? Justice Gorsuch answer this in Rodriguez v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., U.S., No. 18-1269, 2/25/20.[1] The answer . . . less often than you might think.

On January 17, 2020, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that the Alberta Securities Commission’s (the “ASC”) administrative penalties against Theodor Hennig (“Hennig”) survived Hennig’s discharge in bankruptcy. This decision marks the first time a Canadian court has considered securities regulatory penalties within the context of subsection 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.

Commercial bankruptcy practice in the United States is governed by Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code. The focus of Chapter 11 is assisting a distressed company to reorganize its debts to emerge as a going concern or liquidate its assets as part of an orderly wind-down. In this article, we highlight the key benefits available to a Chapter 11 debtor and describe the various stages of a case, including statutory requirements, and types of plans.

Are the regimes of construction adjudication and insolvency incompatible? Recent Court of Appeal authority suggested that they are, but in Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (In Liquidation) v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC (TCC), Adam Constable QC sitting as a district judge in the high court has clarified the exceptional circumstances in which a company in liquidation can enforce an adjudicator’s decision in its favour.

The Dutch legislator has published a bill for a new pre-insolvency tool, which seeks to combine the best of the UK scheme of arrangement and the US Chapter 11 procedure. The new legislation will be formally called 'The Act regarding the binding approval of debt restructuring agreements'. Among restructuring professionals it is already widely referred to as the WHOA (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord) or the "Dutch Scheme". Currently, the WHOA is pending final approval by the Dutch parliament and is expected to enter into force on 1 July 2020.

As the name suggests, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 (Model Law) seeks to address complexities caused where insolvencies cross borders, while leaving substantive insolvency laws of each country largely unaltered. However, as jurisdictions continue to adopt and interpret the Model Law, inconsistencies in its application are coming to light.

• Az Igazságügyi Minisztérium 2018-ban látott hozzá az új Fizetésképtelenségi Törvény előkészítéséhez, amely kapcsán erős szakmai igények fogalmazódtak meg – többek között a reorganizáció elősegítését vagy a hitelezők nagyobb arányú megtérítését illetően.
• A 2019 nyarán hatályba lépett Szerkezetátalakítási Irányelv lehetőséget biztosít egy eddig a magyar jogban nem létező eljárás, az ún.

Reconsidering the Lasmos approach to winding-up petitions involving arbitration clauses.