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).
Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a procedure to obtain recognition in the United States of a "foreign proceeding," which includes a foreign bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, or
On June 26, 2013, US Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, overseeing the chapter 11 case of Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), unsealed a 1,900-page report produced by court-appointed examiner, Arthur J. Gonzalez, and his professionals, Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC. The Examiner Report was the culmination of a ten-month investigation that identified amyriad of causes of action, potentially worth billions of dollars, arising fromdozens of transactions involving ResCap's parent, Ally Financial Inc., its subsidiary Ally Bank, and Cerberus.
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.
Over the last several years, the number of Chapter 15 filings has continued to grow. One of the most prominent of these bankruptcy filings is the Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. case. When last we reported on theVitro case, the Texas bankruptcy court administering the Chapter 15 case had denied recognition to the Mexican restructuring plan of Vitro because the plan provided third party releases to non-debtors. See Vitro, S.A.B.: Bankruptcy Court Refuses to Recognize Mexican Concurso That Releases Claims Against Non-Debtors” (November 2012).
Last Fall, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in the Charter Communications bankruptcy case which will create additional significant challenges for those seeking to appeal confirmation of plans of reorganization that have been implemented. See 691 F.3d 476. Upon implementation (or “substantial consummation”) of the plan, the Second Circuit presumes that the appeal of such plan is equitably moot. Appellants bear the burden of overcoming that presumption.
When does the selection of a technically correct venue become “unjust”? This was the core question Judge Shelley Chapman was required to grapple with when Patriot Coal and almost 100 of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in New York this past summer. Should it matter that Patriot Coal created the New York subsidiaries, that permitted a New York court filing, about a month prior to the actual bankruptcy filing?
In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of an executory trademark license does not terminate the licensee’s right to use the trademark. The decision creates a circuit-level split that may invite Supreme Court review. However, no final resolution is likely soon. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, denying a petition for a writ of certiorari in December of 2012.