The U.S. Supreme Court held last week in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. that an insurance company with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” with the right to object to a Chapter 11 reorganization plan.

Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:

Click here to listen to the audio

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that because Indian tribes are indisputably governments, the Bankruptcy Code unmistakably abrogates their sovereign immunity to bankruptcy court proceedings.

This article originally appeared in Vol. 52 of Kentucky Trucker, a publication of the Kentucky Trucking Association.

Purchasers often relish the prospect of buying distressed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a buyer may obtain ownership of bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear of any interest” (assuming certain conditions are met), and also be reasonably confident that the sale will not be reversed on appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court may have now tempered that confidence. In its recent, unanimous opinion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, No. 21-1270 (Apr.

This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law Professional Perspectives.

SVB Financial Group, the corporate parent of Silicon Valley Bank, filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on March 17. According to a press release issued by SVB Financial Group, its related entities SVB Securities and SVB Capital are not included in the Chapter 11 filing. This bankruptcy filing comes a week after regulators took control of the failed Silicon Valley Bank.

On January 23, the NY DFS released updated guidance with regard to better protecting consumers in the event of virtual currency insolvency. This updated guidance applies to entities that DFS has licensed or chartered to hold or maintain virtual currency assets on behalf of their customers.

Yeni Gelişme

Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu’nun 3 Haziran 2022 tarih ve 2021/1 E., 2022/3 K. sayılı Kararı (“İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı“), 26 Kasım 2022’de Resmi Gazete’de yayımlandı. İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı uyarınca, aleyhine icra takibi başlatılan borçlu, takibe vekili aracılığıyla itiraz etse dahi, alacaklının açacağı itirazın iptali davasında dava dilekçesi vekile değil asıla (borçlunun kendisine) tebliğ edilmelidir.

Gelişme Ne Anlama Geliyor?

Recent development