I sense a sea change in the recent Delaware decision in Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, 2016 WL 3185576 (6/3/16), refusing to enforce a bankruptcy proofing provision of a Delaware LLC’s operating agreement. Until recently, the trend had been to accept the fundamental principles of bankruptcy remoteness, although courts sometimes found ways to avoid honoring anti-bankruptcy devices in specific cases.
In a judgment dated 26 / 03 / 2015, ref. no. IX ZR 302 / 13, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that a provisional insolvency administrator is personally liable for monies paid into the escrow account in the event of claims of unjust enrichment being made due to the payments having no proper basis in law.
The ruling related to the following situation:
Mit Urteil vom 26. März 2015, AZ IX ZR 302 / 13, entschied der BGH, dass ein vorläufiger Insolvenzver- walter für Zahlungen auf das Voll- rechtstreuhandkonto persönlich haf- tet, wenn Bereicherungsansprüche wegen rechtsgrundloser Zahlungen geltend gemacht werden.
Dieser Entscheidung lag folgender Sachverhalt zu Grunde:
Greenberg Traurig, LLP | gtlaw.com 1 Sixth Annual American College of Bankruptcy Seventh Circuit Education Committee Seminar Session: Exploring the Outer Limits of the Avoiding Powers September 11, 2015 IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law 565 West Adams Street Chicago, IL Moderator: Nancy A.
Report contents:
Banking & Finance Aktuelle Informationen des Geschäftsbereichs Banking & Finance News from the Banking & Finance practice Juli/July 2015 4 | Editorial Fokus 6 | BaFin erlaubt regulierten Fonds die direkte Kreditvergabe 8 | Immer wieder Restrukturierung von Anleihen 10 | Zur Verwertung von mit fremden Marken gekennzeichnetem Sicherungsgut durch den Sicherungsnehmer und der Bedeutung des markenrechtlichen Erschöpfungsgrundsatzes, §24 Abs.
This week’s unanimous Supreme Court decision barring the strip off of wholly unsecured junior liens in chapter 7 cases is one of the stranger recent opinions of the Court. See Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421, ___ U.S. ___ (June 1, 2015). While the result is not particularly surprising, what is unusual is that the Court goes out of its way to question its two decades old decision inDewsnup and may even be hinting that it is ready to overrule that decision. See Dewsnup v. Timm,502 U.S. 410 (1992).
A collective sigh of relief was the main effect of this week’s much-awaited Supreme Court decision on bankruptcy jurisdiction in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935, ___ U.S.___ (May 26, 2015, Sotomayor, J.). While a number of minor issues remain, the majority’s ruling that bankruptcy judges can issue judgments and final orders with the parties’ consent means that the current bankruptcy system can continue to function normally.
In a little-noticed November opinion, the Seventh Circuit greatly expanded the ability of a bankruptcy trustee to avoid a security interest for documentation errors under section 544(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. See State Bank of Toulon v. Covey (In re Duckworth), 776 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 2014).
Last week’s Supreme Court arguments on bankruptcy jurisdiction in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (S.Ct.), are enough to strike fear into the heart of any bankruptcy buff. What emerges from the transcript of the oral arguments is, in a word, confusion. This bodes ill for an early resolution of the upheaval created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), limiting the power of bankruptcy judges to decide certain matters that arise in bankruptcy proceedings.