During a November 9, 2022, hearing on summary judgment motions in the Hertz bankruptcy, Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath issues the following oral ruling:
The case is Wells v. McCallister, Case No. 21-1448 in the United States Supreme Court.
The question presented is:
- whether a debtor’s homestead exemption, existing on the date of bankruptcy filing, can vanish if the debtor sells the homestead during the bankruptcy and does not promptly reinvest the proceeds in another homestead.
The Petition for writ of certiorari explains:
Directors of Australian companies face significant personal monetary – and potential criminal and adverse professional – consequences if they allow the company to trade whilst insolvent.
Australian insolvent trading laws are harsher, and more frequently utilised to prosecute directors personally, than in many other jurisdictions including in the US and the UK.
Accordingly, frequent assessment of a company's solvency by its directors is crucial, particularly in financially difficult times, as are active steps to address any potential insolvency.
In brief
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company’s creditors.
Contents
For some reason, there is a fascination out there (not sure where, exactly) with having every assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) supervised by a court from the get-go.
This fascination suggests that every ABC effort requires court action and judicial approvals, from the beginning and throughout the assignment, to assure that everything about the ABC and its administration is on the up-and-up.
Startling and Puzzling
This fascination is both startling and puzzling. Here are some reasons why.
In its Siegel v. Fitzgerald opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court declares that disparate quarterly fee amounts between U.S. Trustee and Bankruptcy Administrator districts are unconstitutional, under the uniformity requirement of the U.S. Constitution’s bankruptcy clause.
The most recent fallout from that opinion is the following docket entry by the U.S. Supreme Court in a different case with the same issues:
In brief
In brief
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company’s creditors.
Contents
Illinois follows the common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”): a non-judicial, trust-like process for liquidating a failed business.
That ABC process can work, hand-in-hand, with the Bankruptcy Code. The case of In re Computer World Solutions, Inc., Case No. 07-21123, Northern Illinois Bankruptcy Court, shows us how.
FACTS
Debtor is an importer and distributor of computer monitors, televisions and other electronic products, owing $20 million to Bank, which holds a first-lien on virtually all of Debtor’s assets.
In brief
In Japan, any out-of-court workout requires the unanimous consent of all creditors to a restructuring plan. On 4 October 2022, the Japanese government announced that it is considering introducing new out-of-court workout rules. Under the proposed new rules, a restructuring plan will be binding if a majority vote of creditors and confirmation of the court is obtained. Such a majority rule is a common feature amongst schemes of arrangement in many other countries.
In more detail