Introduction
The court provides guidance on liability if a subsidiary goes bankrupt because of the misconduct and careless management of its parent company.
Over the last few years, employees have increasingly sought to hold the parent companies of their employers liable for the subsidiaries’ actions by trying to demonstrate that the parent entity is the employee’s co-employer, i.e., that the employee has two employers: the company that hired him or her and its parent company.
To demonstrate this co-employment situation, the employee must prove either that
On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.
On June 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals1 vacated a District Court’s dismissal order and resuscitated a bankruptcy appeal brought by a group of litigation creditors seeking recourse against the debtors post-confirmation.2 The Third Circuit opinion is an important reminder to both debtors and creditors that the doctrine of “equitable mootness” has limits and that confirmation of a plan does not preclude review of post-confirmation actions inconsistent with obligations in the plan.
The new law extends the grounds for shareholders’ liability and invalidation of transactions.
On 26 March 2014, the new Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Law (the New Law) took effect in Kazakhstan. The New Law supersedes the Bankruptcy Law adopted in 1997 (the Old Law).
Introduction
Procedural background
Facts
Statute of limitations
Actual fraudulent conveyance
Settlement
Comment
Introduction
Background
Third Circuit's majority opinion
Dissent
Analysis
Successor claims as property of the estate
Introduction
Background
Release of non-debtors in US bankruptcy proceedings
Recognition and enforcement of foreign non-debtor releases
Limits on bankruptcy jurisdiction
The theory of universality in insolvency, along with globalisation, has gained much traction across many jurisdictions in recent years. Briefly, the universality theory proposes that an insolvency proceeding has worldwide effect over all the assets of the insolvent company, wherever they may be.
Introduction
Shifting balance between international arbitration and bankruptcy
Arbitration clauses in US bankruptcy courts
Implications of Stern v Marshall