In its ruling in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Sweeney (In re Centaur, LLC), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware addressed the Supreme Court’s recent clarification of the scope of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e)’s “safe harbor” provision, affirming a more narrow interpretation of Section 546(e).
On 1 October 2018, the Singapore Parliament passed the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill (the "Bill"), an omnibus legislation which will consolidate Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and restructuring laws, which are currently under separate legislative regimes.
The overhaul follows recent amendments to the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions of the Singapore Companies Act, and is part of a wider effort to boost the debt restructuring ecosystem in Singapore.
Key provisions introduced by the bill
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to address “[w]hether, under §365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a license agreement—which ‘constitutes a breach of such contract,’ 11 U.S.C. §365(g)—terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” The appeal arises from a First Circuit decision, Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v.
- Genussrechte können nur dann als inhaltsgleiche Schuldverschreibungen aus Gesamtemissionen dem Schuldverschreibungsgesetz unterfallen, wenn sie in einer Urkunde verbrieft sind (Genussschein).
- In einem Prozess über Rechte der Schuldverschreibungsgläubiger aus den Schuldverschreibungen sind diese auch dann Partei des Prozesses, wenn sie einen gemeinsamen Vertreter bestellt haben.
- Die Vertretungsmacht im Insolvenzverfahren berechtigt den gemeinsamen Vertreter auch ohne vorhergehenden gesonderten Beschluss der Gläubigerversammlung, der Forderungsanmeldung eines anderen Gläu
The global M&A market has remained strong from the end of 2017 into 2018, with the total deals announced in the first half of 2018 making it the best period for global M&A yet. With stockholders pressuring larger companies to grow their revenues and the strong liquidity position of many companies, it is a sellers’ market.
A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision provides insight into “bad faith” claims-buying activity; specifically whether a creditor’s purchase of claims for the express purpose of blocking plan confirmation is permissible. In In re Fagerdala USA-Lompoc, Inc., the Court found it was—the secured creditor did not act in bad faith when it purchased a subset of all general unsecured claims and voted those claims against confirmation because it was acting to further its own economic interest as a creditor, without some extrinsic ulterior motive.
Foreign judgments may be enforced in Australia under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 or, if that Act does not apply, pursuant to common law principles.
Registration and enforcement pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Act 1991
It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?
The Supreme Court recently addressed two bankruptcy issues. In its opinion, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the breadth of the safe harbor provision which protects certain transfers by financial institutions in connection with a securities contract. In Village at Lakeridge, the Court weighed in on the scope of appellate review and whether a bankruptcy court’s factual determination should be reviewed for clear error or de novo. These decisions are notable because they provide guidance on previously murky issues of bankruptcy law.
1. It is hard to get rid of this preconceived idea that unlike other systems, the French insolvency system (excessively) favours debtors at the expense of their creditors.
Some recent decisions make it possible to question this idea.
These decisions deal with the conditions required for the approval of a safeguard plan and are warnings to debtors that might be tempted to force their plan through.
Safeguard proceedings end with the court-approval of a restructuring plan when there are serious chances of rescuing the business (French Commercial Code, Art. L.626-1).