Introduction
The Bankruptcy Protector
The Bankruptcy Protector
On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (U.S. June 6, 2022) that the increase in fees payable to the U.S. Trustee system in 2018 violated the uniformity aspect of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution because it was not immediately applicable in the two states with Bankruptcy Administrators rather than U.S. Trustees.
The Bankruptcy Protector
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898, the Court explained when a creditor would be considered acting unreasonable in rejecting a debtor’s settlement proposal. At the end of the hearing, the Court made a winding-up order against the Company in question and a bankruptcy order against the director of the Company, Mr Ashit Sud, who had provided guarantees.
Background
簡介
最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院說明了債權人在甚麼情況下拒絕債務人的和解建議會被視為不合理。案件審結時，法院對涉案公司（「該公司」）發出清盤令，以及對提供擔保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「該董事」）發出破產令。
背景
The Bankruptcy Protector
Bankruptcy Basics for New and Non-Bankruptcy Attorneys
This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will discuss how ipso facto clauses are treated in bankruptcy.
Imagine you are the vendor to an entity that has just filed for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Your contract documents include the following default provision:
简介
最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院说明了债权人在甚么情况下拒绝债务人的和解建议会被视为不合理。案件审结时，法院对涉案公司（「该公司」）发出清盘令，以及对提供担保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「该董事」）发出破产令。
背景
The Bankruptcy Protector
In Enter. Bank v. The Ingros Fam. LLC, et al., 2022 WL 2283392 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. June 23, 2022), a lender faced a potentially costly decision when it mistakenly left the word “The” from a borrower’s name.