Bankruptcy is intended to provide a fresh start and discharge outstanding debt.  But some debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.  A Virginia bankruptcy court held last week that a judgment against the debtor for intentional trade secret misappropriation is not dischargeable.

Introduction
Liability based on tort or contract
Piercing the corporate veil
New legislation
Comment

Introduction

In its decision of 11 July 2013, Reference No. 21 ICdo 21/2012, the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic comprehensively expressed its opinion on the substantive legal aspects of re-pledging a receivable burdened by a lien and the possibility of negotiating a contractual waiver of re-pledging receivables. According to the decision, the pledging of a receivable does not preclude the possibility of establishing another lien on the same receivable. This decision is crucial for pledgees, typically financing banks.

Case background

On August 21, 2013, in Wellness International Network v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (7th Cir. August 21, 2013), the Seventh Circuit issued its latest opinion on the thorny issues emanating from the Supreme Court’s “narrow” decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.

The Issue

The Issue

With effect as per 1 July 2013, the Austrian legislator has enacted an amendment to the Limited Liability Companies Act (GesRÄG 2013) providing primarily for a de-crease of the minimum share capital to EUR 10,000, as well as a decrease of the formation costs. These changes are aimed at maintaining Austrian limited liability companies’ competitiveness in comparison to other European limited capital compa-nies and to fostering the formation of new limited liability companies also by small service providers.

Fiduciaries who breach their duties may pay the consequences far longer than they may think, for they may not even be able to escape liability through personal bankruptcy.  In Raso v. Fahey (In re Fahey), No. 11-1118 (June 11, 2013), the U.S Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts became the first court to apply the new defalcation guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Bullock v. BankChampaign, NA, 133 S. Ct.

In the case, the insolvency proceedings had not been used for the purposes provided by Law 85/2006 on insolvency proceedings (Law 85) but for other purposes.

Banks in Bulgaria are seriously concerned with borrowers fraudulently manipulating their accountancy books with the effect that banks’ security interests are declared invalid and banks are declassed into ordinary (unsecured) insolvency creditors.