Thanks to Anna Nicole Smith and the June 2011 landmark Supreme Court decision in Stern v. Marshall, there are seemingly more questions regarding a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter final orders (or even proposed orders) than ever before. Those unanswered questions have created considerable uncertainty and, not surprisingly, lengthier and costlier litigation in bankruptcy. Thankfully, the Supremes decided on June 24, 2013 that they will address two of the many questions left unanswered by Stern.
Le 11 juin 2013, la Chambre des députés luxembourgeoise a voté une loi instaurant un droit de revendication en faveur de la personne qui a confié des biens meubles "incorporels" non fongibles à une entreprise qui est tombée en faillite (le dossier parlementaire peut être téléchargé ici). Il ressort des travaux préparatoires qu'une des hypothèses visées est la revendication de données et fichiers stockés via une solution "cloud" (informatique dématérialisée) chez un prestataire tiers.
On 11 June 2013, the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies voted in favour of a law introducing a right to claim back "intangible" and non-fungible movable assets from a bankrupt company (the parliamentary file can be downloaded
Navigating the most recent leg in the Quebecor regatta, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and ruled that prepetition transfers made in connection with a securities contract may qualify for safe harbor from avoidance actions under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code—even if the transferee is a mere “conduit” or “intermediary” financial institution. In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc. (Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc. v. American United Life Insurance Co.), No. 12-4270-bk (2d Cir. June 10, 2013).
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently held that a third amendment to a lease agreement entered into for the purpose of leasing a second building could not be severed from the original lease agreement; and the debtor was not allowed to reject the lease on that second building under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.
It was just an old jalopy legally repossessed by his credit union . . . until he filed a bankruptcy petition and the red lights of the automatic stay started flashing. Smokey pulled the lender over and started issuing citations so be forewarned, put your hazard lights on and drive carefully through the postpetition fog, because this decision is relevant to all secured creditors under all Bankruptcy Code Chapters, not just car lenders under Chapter 13.
Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State 13 februari 2013, LJN: BZ1261
In haar uitspraak van 13 februari 2013 heeft de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (de "Afdeling") uitleg gegeven over de positie van een curator bij naleving van de voor een inrichting geldende milieuwetgeving.