Hajime Ueno, Masaru Shibahara and Hiroki Nakamura, Nishimura & Asahi
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Rabindra S Nathan, Shearn Delamore & Co
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Swee Siang Boey, Vani Nair, Selina Toh and Suchitra Kumar, RPC Premier Law
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Nuo Ji, Lingqi Wang, Jessica Li and Sylvia Zhang, Fangda Partners
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
In an underreported amendment to the Bankruptcy Code, the Small Business Reorganization Act amended §547(b) of the Code to add an explicit requirement for the bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession to conduct “reasonable due diligence” before filing a preference action. The apparent goal of this amendment to the Bankruptcy Code is to reduce the number of frivolous preference lawsuits pursued by trustees.
On August 16, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an individual guarantor remained liable for more than $58 million in commercial debt, despite the individual’s claims that the lenders induced him to provide the guaranty under duress. See Lockwood International, Inc. v. Wells Fargo, NA, et al., Case No. 20-40324 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021).
COVID-19 M&A Lessons
On April 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald (In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.), Case No. 19-2240 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a 2017 law that substantially increased the quarterly fees debtors are required to pay to the Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”) in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
On March 31, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada awarded attorney’s fees to a debtor under a Nevada fee-shifting statute for objecting to a time-barred proof of claim.1 The opinion serves as a warning that filing a proof of claim for time-barred debt may carry consequences other than claim disallowance despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Midland Fu
A year ago, many predicted that the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines and their impact on the economy would result in a deluge of bankruptcy filings that could rival the Great Recession of 2008-2009. However, as we approach the one-year anniversary of former President Trump declaring the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus a national emergency, that prediction has not come to pass.