This issue reviews the most important recent changes to the regime of challenging transactions made by debtors in anticipation of insolvency. These changes were introduced in the Resolution adopted at the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation (the “Supreme Commercial Court”) No. 63 “Certain Matters Relating to the Application of Chapter III.1 of the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”1 dated 23 December 2010 (the “Resolution”).2
28 June 2013 the Russian President signed Federal Law No. 134-FZ amending a number of laws in relation to combating illegal financial operations.
The Law amended, in particular, the Law on Banks and Banking Activity, the Anti-Money Laundering Law, the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses, the Law on State Registration of Legal Entities, the Bankruptcy Law, laws regarding certain financial organizations, and the Tax Code. Below is a summary of the key changes (save for those made to the Tax Code).
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held in Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, No. 12-2312 (July 24, 2013), a case of first impression at the Circuit Court level, that a private equity fund that exercises sufficient control over a portfolio company may be considered a “trade or business” for purposes of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
In 2010, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated several amendments (Amendments) to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Article 9) designed to address problems that have arisen since revised Article 9 went into effect in 2001. Most, but not all, of the Amendments address the proper way to reflect debtor names on financing statements.
Timing and Enactment
The UK's bank regulatory and insolvency law structures were unprepared for the global financial crisis. As a result, the UK government's response to intense bank stress in the immediate aftermath of the crunch led to a number of somewhat unsatisfactory ad hoc solutions ranging from nationalisations to encouraging otherwise healthy institutions to take over weaker banks. Generally speaking, there was a criticism, fairly made perhaps, that profits were privatised and losses had been socialised.
Fundamental restructuring of insolvent companies—in any sector— is a fight for survival.
Given the global nature of the industry, it is perhaps no surprise that shipping companies and their advisors have sought appropriate court protection to alleviate creditor pressure and a possible break-up of the business where a consensual restructuring is not possible.
Overview
Overview
In a major victory for secured creditors, the United States Supreme Court, on May 29, 2012, unanimously held that a chapter 11 plan involving a sale of secured property must afford the secured creditor the right to credit bid for the property under section 363(k) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).1 In so holding, the Supreme Court resolved the split that had emerged among the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals, as illustrated by the Seventh Circuit’s decision below,2 which contrasted with recent decisions from the Third and Fifth Circui
In October 2009, the court overseeing the TOUSA, Inc. bankruptcy cases in the Southern District of Florida (Bankruptcy Court) set off considerable alarm bells throughout the lending community when it unraveled a refinancing transaction as a fraudulent conveyance based upon, in primary part, the fact that certain subsidiaries of TOUSA, Inc. pledged their assets as collateral for a new loan that was used to repay prior debt on which the subsidiaries were not liable, and that was not secured by those subsidiaries’ assets.