Emergency legislation has introduced important changes to Hungarian insolvency laws that allow the debtor’s business to keep trading during insolvency.
The new rules apply to those debtors who are considered strategically important to the Hungarian economy and to those whose insolvency is declared under other emergency rules.
On January 9, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own 39-year-old precedent to find that: (1) the definition of “transfer” for purposes of section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code depends on federal, not state, law; and (2) the date of “transfer” is the time at which the money passes to the creditor’s control.
In Worthy Lending LLC v. New Style Contractors. Inc., the New York Court of Appeals held that a security interest includes a lender’s right to force the borrower’s account debtors to remit payments directly to the lender, regardless of whether an event of default exists. Further, the court clarified that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not provide a distinction between a security interest and an assignment.
On July 19, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ruled that a creditor’s proof of claim — while meeting the standard of the Bankruptcy Code — was insufficient to enforce the debt under state law and was therefore subject to disallowance.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has released guidance to its attorneys regarding requests to discharge student loans in bankruptcy cases.
Creditors and debt collectors may rest assured that they are not violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when sending debt-collection communications prior to any knowledge of a debtor’s bankruptcy filing. In Carrasquillo v.
When deciding the amount of homestead exemption to which a debtor is entitled, should a bankruptcy court apply the state exemption in effect on the creation date of the lien or on the bankruptcy filing date? According to the Ninth Circuit in a recent decision, the court should apply the state exemption law in effect on the filing date of the bankruptcy petition.
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Appellant)v HSBC Bank PLC (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 34, striking out a significant claim (£116m) for breach of the Quincecare duty on the grounds that the claimant had suffered no loss.
Finance companies in Slovakia have felt endangered since 2019 when the Regional Court in Košice, acting as a second instance court confirmed a lower-court ruling that a financial party could be qualified as a related party in the eventual insolvency of the borrower as debtor.
The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in the Sequana case (handed down on 5 October 2022)[1] is the first time that the UK’s highest court has been asked to consider the proposition that directors are, in certain circumstances, under a duty in respect of creditors’ interests as distinct from shareholders’ interests.
The key takeaway points from this ‘momentous decision for company law’ (the words of Lady Arden who gave one of the leading judgments) are: