The District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a trustee could not amend a complaint to add federal constructive fraudulent transfer claims because those claims were preempted by the safe harbor provision of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] The District Court found, under a plain language reading of the safe harbor provision, 11 U.S.C.
In May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a much anticipated decision in Garvin v. Cook Investments NW, SPNWY, LLC, 922 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.
In late 2017 the UK Government spent £60 million of taxpayers' money repatriating over 110,000 Monarch Airlines passengers stranded overseas.
The Airline Insolvency Review was created to "consider both repatriation and refund protection to identify the market reforms necessary to ensure passengers are protected".
Last month, a federal district court affirmed a bankruptcy court’s ruling that an ex-NFL player’s potential future recovery from a concussion-related class action settlement agreement was shielded from the reach of creditors in the former player’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. The ruling turned on the bankruptcy court’s finding that the potential future settlement payments were more akin to a disability benefit, which is exempt under Florida law, than a standard tort settlement, which is not.
Background
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently examined and then clarified and set forth the test for evaluating the appealability of bankruptcy orders in an opinion released in the case Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry. In doing so, the appellate court reaffirmed the “longstanding and textually-compelled rule of [a] looser finality” standard in bankruptcy as compared to general civil litigation, and concluded that a denial of a motion to lift stay was a final appealable order subject to the fourteen-day appeals period established in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a).
On 1 October 2018, the Singapore Parliament passed the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill (the "Bill"), an omnibus legislation which will consolidate Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and restructuring laws, which are currently under separate legislative regimes.
The overhaul follows recent amendments to the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions of the Singapore Companies Act, and is part of a wider effort to boost the debt restructuring ecosystem in Singapore.
Key provisions introduced by the bill
- Genussrechte können nur dann als inhaltsgleiche Schuldverschreibungen aus Gesamtemissionen dem Schuldverschreibungsgesetz unterfallen, wenn sie in einer Urkunde verbrieft sind (Genussschein).
- In einem Prozess über Rechte der Schuldverschreibungsgläubiger aus den Schuldverschreibungen sind diese auch dann Partei des Prozesses, wenn sie einen gemeinsamen Vertreter bestellt haben.
- Die Vertretungsmacht im Insolvenzverfahren berechtigt den gemeinsamen Vertreter auch ohne vorhergehenden gesonderten Beschluss der Gläubigerversammlung, der Forderungsanmeldung eines anderen Gläu
Recently, in the Advance Watch bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a bankruptcy judge is authorized to enter a final default judgment in an adversary proceeding against a foreign defendant who failed to respond to a validly-served summons and complaint, in spite of being an Article I judge.[1] Notably, the court found that the recent Supreme Court decision, Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015), a further iteration of the Stern v.
Foreign judgments may be enforced in Australia under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 or, if that Act does not apply, pursuant to common law principles.
Registration and enforcement pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Act 1991