The question whether a counter claim filed against a Corporate Debtor is liable to be stayed during moratorium has been considered by the Courts/NCLT/NCLAT time and again. Since its inception, the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) has been a hotbed of discussions and debates amongst the legal experts. Under the Code, the concept of moratorium is envisaged under Section 13 and 14 and provides for a time period within which the following against the Corporate Debtor are prohibited:

3 Questions Every Company Should Ask Now

Economic stimulus packages, like the CARES Act, will provide some financial relief for Americans reeling from the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Unfortunately, unscrupulous fraudsters will manipulate these financial lifelines and the instability that has taken hold of so many households. This means government investigators across all jurisdictions will be on high alert and more active than ever.

INTRODUCTION:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) was enacted by the Parliament with the aim to provide and revamp the framework for insolvency resolution in India in a time bound manner and for the promotion of entrepreneurship, credit availability and balancing of different interests of each and every stakeholder of a Company.

Debtors in bankruptcy, including hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, left out under the CARES Act PPP

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion on December 24, 2019, In re Homebanc Mortgage Crop., No. 18-2887, 2019 WL 7161215(3rd Cir. De. 24, 2019) that has significant consequences for participants in repurchases transactions. The court affirmed the lower court judgment, that the securities had been liquidated in good faith.

Facts

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a safe harbor provision that establishes that a trustee or debtor-in-possession may not avoid a transfer “by or to... a financial institution.. in connection with a securities contract” other than under an intentional fraudulent conveyance theory. On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit in Note Holders v.

In 2007, Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, LP dba Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Plaintiff”) secured a gaming license from Pennsylvania for $50,000,000 with the understanding that it open its casino business within one year. Plaintiff failed to do so and, despite a number of extensions, Pennsylvania cancelled and revoked the gaming license in December 2010. Without a gaming license, Plaintiff found itself in chapter 11 by spring of 2014.

The Bankruptcy Protector has previously provided a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevichere and

In In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., 2019 WL 6767004 (6th Cir. Ct. App.), the United States Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the bankruptcy court for further consideration, the determination that the bankruptcy court held exclusive and unlimited jurisdiction and therefore could enjoin FERC from taking action regarding energy contracts because under the BJR they were financially burdensome on FES and as such could be rejected.

Facts

The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on October 29, 2019, in In re TelexFree, LLC, No. 18-2001, 2019 WL 5558088, at *1 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2019) that has significant consequences for ponzi scheme litigation in bankruptcy court.

The TelexFree Ponzi Scheme and Related Bankruptcy Litigation