The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the conditions under which incongruent collateral, granted when an insolvency is imminent, can be contested. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant creditor to demonstrate that the action was part of a serious restructuring attempt.
Background
Here’s a dilemma:
- Should bankruptcy be available as a tool for resolving mass tort cases of all types (like it already is in asbestos contexts)?
Here’s an illustration of the dilemma:
- many tort claimants in the Johnson & Johnson case DO NOT want bankruptcy involved; but
- many tort claimants in the Purdue Pharma case were BEGGING the courts to approve the bankruptcy plan.
How do we solve this dilemma?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion is Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., Case No. 22-1079, Decided June 6, 2024.
Opinion’s Q & A
The Truck Insurance question is this:
- Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” under § 1109(b)?
The Supreme Court’s answer is this:
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the eighth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the Subchapter V trustee or other party in interest should be allowed to file a plan after debtor’s removal from possession.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
We have a direct statutory conflict:
- one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
- a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.
Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.
- That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]
Statutory Conflict
The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the seventh in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility should remain or revert to an interest-adjusted $3,024,725.
Recommendation
In a recent judgment, the Polish Supreme Court resolved an important question concerning the rights of a creditor to bring legal proceedings after the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings by a debtor.
Legal issue
The Supreme Court considered whether the declaration of a debtor's bankruptcy results in the loss of a creditor's standing to bring a lawsuit to declare a debtor’s attempt to dissipate its assets ineffective (actio pauliana).
What is actio pauliana?
The Austrian Supreme Court recently considered whether the knowledge of a debtor may be attributed to a third party in an avoidance action.
Background
In a recent decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) further outlined the requirements for the avoidance of a transaction under insolvency law on the grounds of wilful disadvantage to creditors pursuant to section 133 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO).
Background
Background
Crabb was the sole director of Courtside Recycling Ltd (Courtside). From 2014 to 2018, Crabb instructed Courtside's accountants to file VAT returns but only provided bank statements for one of the Company's three bank accounts. As a result, the VAT assessments significantly understated Courtside's true VAT liabilities for this period.
Following its own investigation and using transaction information gathered from Courtside's other bank accounts, HMRC issued amended VAT assessments. Courtside was unable to pay its VAT liabilities.