“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

A defendant bank (“Bank”) in a fraudulent transfer suit “could not prove” its “good faith” defense for loan repayments it received after its “investigator discovered [the] fraudulent past” of the Ponzi scheme debtor’s principal but “failed to disclose that past to [the Bank’s account] manager,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Feb. 8, 2017. Meoli v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2248, *28 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2017).

In november 2016 is door de Hoge Raad bevestigd dat de vernietiging van een faillissement geen effect heeft op door een curator voordien verrichte beschikkingshandelingen. De curator kan rechtshandelingen verrichten tot het moment waarop de vernietiging in kracht van gewijsde is gegaan. Wel dient de curator terughoudend gebruik te maken van zijn bevoegdheden gedurende de periode waarin een vonnis tot faillietverklaring is vernietigd, maar deze vernietiging nog niet onherroepelijk is geworden.

Juridisch kader

De kwaliteit van de debiteurenportefeuille is van belang voor de beoordeling van de vraag of een tussentijds dividendbesluit door de beugel kan. Dat blijkt uit een uitspraak van de Hoge Raad d.d. 23 september 2016.

Hierna volgt een korte bespreking van een arrest dat met name van belang is voor de praktijk. Een praktijk waarin curatoren steeds vaker geconfronteerd worden met ICT-leveranciers die zich opstellen als dwangcrediteuren (ik roep Oilily in herinnering), maar niet onder de reikwijdte van artikl 37b Fw vallen.

The latest piece in the jigsaw of Hong Kong's corporate winding-up regime is the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 ("Amendment Ordinance"), which enters into legal effect as of today, 13 February 2017.

On Jan. 17, 2017, in a closely watched dispute surrounding Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp. (the “Decision”).[1] In a 2-1 ruling reversing the District Court,[2] the Court of Appeals construed Section 316(b) narrowly, holding that it only prohibits “non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms” and does not protect noteholders’ practical ability to receive payment.[3]

Introduction

On November 8 2016 Parliament adopted the Sapin II Act to promote:

• transparency;
• the fight against corruption; and
• the modernisation of the economy.

The act authorises the government to make decisions regarding legislative matters, including with regard to clarifying and modernising the status of security agents and their role in restructurings.

“Transaction fees are part of the standard, negotiated base compensation for the investment banker,” held the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 16, 2016. In re Relativity Fashion, LLC, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 4339, *10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016) (Wiles, B.J.). The court denied objections to the transaction fees sought by two investment bankers, P and H, ruling that the objecting parties (a fee examiner, the debtor and a secured lender) had no right under Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 328(a) to challenge the transaction fees. Id. at *25.

An undersecured mortgagee’s “release of [its entire underlying claim] was value obtained ‘in exchange for’ the [pre-bankruptcy] sale of the [debtor’s] property,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Dec. 6, 2016. In re Expert South Tulsa LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21704, at *11 (10th Cir. Dec. 6, 2016). The Tenth Circuit flatly rejected the debtor’s attempt “to set aside as a fraudulent transfer its own sale of real estate that was encumbered by a mortgage far exceeding the sale price.” Id. at *1.