What happens to funds held by a Chapter 13 trustee (the “Trustee”) in the event that a Chapter 13 debtor dismisses her case voluntarily? That’s the question that was addressed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “Court”) in a recent opinion.1
In this case, the Chapter 13 debtor (the “Debtor”) owned a residence with significant equity. The Court confirmed a plan pursuant to which the Debtor would retain her residence and make monthly payments to the Trustee in the amount of $8,500.75 for 60 months.
The purpose of filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy is to discharge debts. But even after obtaining a discharge, a debtor is not totally in the clear. A recent case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan involves an adversary proceeding in which the United States Trustee sought to revoke a Chapter 7 debtor’s (the “Debtor”) discharge.[i]
In a decision of 9 June 2016, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") has ruled that the determination of the close-out amount in a netting provision based on the German Master Agreement for Financial Derivatives Transactions (Rahmenvertrag für Finanztermingeschäfte or DRV) is not legally effective in the event of insolvency to the extent that it deviates from section 104 of the German Insolvency Code.
On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz[1], ruling that the term “actual fraud” in section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code includes forms of fraud that do not involve a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows debtors to confirm plans that provide for the payment of their debts through future earnings while, at the same time, retaining their assets. If a creditor wishes to receive payments pursuant to a debtor’s plan, the creditor must file a proof of claim. And it must do so timely.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently considered the issue of whether a Chapter 7 trustee may bring a cause of action against a debtor for damages caused to the bankruptcy estate by the debtor’s alleged failure to comply with the debtor’s duties under section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Following on from our recent blog post on Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch), in which Mr Justice Snowdon discussed the issues around wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the quantum of liability that may be placed on directors who continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent, the Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) has issued new guidance on the going concern basis of accounting and reporting on solvency and liquidity risks.
Bankruptcy is all about the debtor’s assets, specifically how many and who gets them. The reason that many bankruptcy cases are contentious is that the parties often disagree about the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors, as well as how the assets should be divvied up.
There is nothing quite like obtaining a new customer or getting a new big sale - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.
However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay for the product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.
It is now clear that leases cannot be assigned to the tenant’s guarantor but serious issues arise out of the recent High Court case of EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited which specified that any lease assignment by a tenant to its guarantor is void. This means that the assignment is not effective, the lease is still held by the previous tenant and the intended assignee remains the guarantor of that previous tenant (and does not become the new tenant of the lease). In addition, be aware that the court’s decision applies retrospectively.