On March 12, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the authority of a bankruptcy court to issue non-consensual, non-debtor releases in connection with the confirmation of a plan of reorganization.1 With this decision, the Eleventh Circuit joined the majority view that such releases are permissible under certain circumstances.
Background
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. White & Case LLC 4 Romanov Pereulok 125009 Moscow Russia + 7 495 787 3000 + 7 495 787 3001 Amendments to Insolvency Law March 2015 ClientAlert Financial Restructuring and Insolvency In December 2014, amendments were introduced to the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” No. 127-FZ, dated 26 October 2002 (“Insolvency Law”).
Настоящий обзор представляет собой краткое изложение последних изменений в российском законодательстве и не является юридической консультацией. За консультацией по конкретному вопросу следует обращаться непосредственно к юристу. Уайт энд Кейс Романов пер., д. 4 125009 Москва Россия + 7 495 787 3000 + 7 495 787 3001 Изменения в законодательстве о банкротстве Март 2015 ClientAlert Финансовая реструктуризация и банкротство В декабре 2014 г. были внесены изменения в Федеральный закон “О несостоятельности (банкротстве)” № 127-ФЗ от 26 октября 2002 г. (“Закон о банкротстве”).
On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.1
Background
On 30 October 2014, the English High Court sanctioned the second scheme of arrangement for the APCOA group (the “Scheme”). APCOA has been one of the hottest names in the restructuring market in 2014. First, it broke new ground in relation to an “amend and extend” scheme in early 2014 when it established sufficient connection to England off the back of a change in governing law. Second, the Scheme was aggressively opposed and its sanction by the High Court was appealed to the Court of Appeal (although ultimately the appeal was withdrawn).
On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an opinion holding that a UCC-3 termination statement that is authorized by the secured party is effective to terminate the original UCC filing even though the secured party did not actually intend to extinguish the underlying security interest.1 Because the court determined that the relevant section of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) is unambiguous and
During its 44th congress in Toronto, on September 17, 2014, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) adopted a resolution on "IP Licensing and Insolvency". The resolution regarding "Question Q241" can be accessed via AIPPI's website using the following link:https://www.aippi.org/download/commitees/241/RS241English.pdf.
The Resolution
On October 16, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an order requiring a real estate lender, First National Bank (the “Lender”), to refund certain mortgage payments it received from Protective Health Management (the “Debtor”), an affiliate of its borrower.1 Because the mortgage payments constituted actual fraudulent transfers, the Fifth Circuit held that the Lender could retain the payments only to the extent of the value of the Debtor’s continued use of the property.2&
Directors of ‘can pay, won‘t pay’ award debtors face the prospect of an extended stay in England should they choose to defy a receivership order granted by the English Court in aid of enforcement.
Introduction
Another bankruptcy court—this time in New York—has weighed in on the issue of whether “make whole” provisions are enforceable in bankruptcy. See In re MPM Silicones, LLC, et al. (a/k/a Momentive Performance Materials).