There has been a relatively recent uptick in plaintiffs’ counsel filing putative class actions in multiple state and federal courts for alleged violations of a debtor’s bankruptcy discharge injunction based upon the debtor’s receipt of post-discharge mortgage-related communications. These claims assert putative class action challenges to post-discharge communications alleged to be attempts at personal collection of the discharged mortgage debt.
Have you ever had to press garlic for a recipe? Or put together a Swedish bookshelf, purchased from a Swedish superstore? Yes, you have – and you may have succeeded, so long as you had a garlic press, or the bag of special Swedish tools respectively. But what if you don’t? Yikes.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lisbon of 02-06-2015
Interpretation of the intentions of a commercial company – Attribution of communications by members of corporate bodies – Signatures
The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether estate professionals could recover fees expended in defending fee applications. Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. _____ (2015). A divided court ruled that the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1) allowed compensation only for “actual, necessary services rendered[,]” and that to allow fees for defending fee applications would be contrary to the statute and the “American Rule” that each litigant pay her own attorneys’ fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.
Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has had to interpret ambiguous, imprecise, and otherwise puzzling language in the Bankruptcy Code, including the phrases “claim,” “interest in property,” “ordinary course of business,” “applicable nonbankruptcy law,” “allowed secured claim,” “willful and malicious injury,” “on account of,” “value, as of the effective date of the plan,” “projected disposable income,” “defalcation,” and “retirement funds.” The interpretive principles employed by the Court in interpreting the peculiarities of the Bankruptcy Code were in full view when the Court r
In 2009, to promote corporate restructuring, the MoF and the SAT jointly released Circular Caishui [2009] No. 59 to grant tax deferral treatment to qualified corporate restructuring transactions (recently modified by Circular 109, mentioned above, which expanded its scope).
In 2010, the SAT released Announcement [2010] No. 4, providing procedural guidelines to benefit from the tax deferral treatment.
The English High Court in Fondazione Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. and Anthracite Rated Investments (Cayman) Limited [2015] EWHC 1307 (Ch) applied a common sense approach in the circumstances to the determination of Loss under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement. The judgment of the judge (Mr Justice David Richards) is useful reading for those involved in structured products and derivatives.
Background
NEW REFORM OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 AMENDMENTS REGARDING REFINANCING AGREEMENTS 3 - NOTIFICATION OF THE START OF NEGOTIATIONS 3 - REFINANCING AGREEMENTS AND COURT APPROVAL 4 AMENDMENTS REGARDING COMPOSITION AGREEMENTS 4 - CONTENT OF THE COMPOSITION AGREEMENT 4 - QUORUM FOR THE CREATION OF THE CREDITORS’ MEETING AND CALCULATION OF MAJORITIES 5 AMENDMENTS REGARDING LIQUIDATION 5 AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS 6 TELEMATIC COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC INSOLVENCY REGISTRY 7 LEGAL UPDATE I COMMERCIAL AND LITIGATION PRACTICE AREAS June 2015
财政部国家税务总局关于个人非货币性资产投资有关个人所得税政策的通知)
On March 30, 2015, the Ministry of Finance (“MoF”) and the SAT jointly released Caishui [2015] No. 41 (“Circular 41”) to expand nationwide the tax payment installment policy applicable in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone to income derived from non-monetary asset investment made by individuals.
Circular 41 defines non-monetary asset investment and includes the contribution of non-monetary assets to establish a new company, to participate in company capital increase, private placement of stock, stock exchange and corporate restructuring.