When considering whether or not to bring a legal action, it is important to establish if it is competent and commercially worthwhile to do so. The ability to bring, or continue with, legal proceedings against a company can be restricted if that company enters into a formal insolvency process. The position of creditors may be improved now that the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 has at last been brought into force.
Bankruptcy made clearer: One of the bastions of old-style Scots terminology, guaranteed to perplex Southern audiences, is the law of bankruptcy in Scotland as it applies to individuals and assorted others.
But maybe for no longer. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 has reached the statute book. It’s a consolidating act, encompassing statutes from 1985, 1993, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2014. It introduces a new and fairly modern framework, the aim being to make it less cumbersome and easier to use by those who do not have intimate knowledge of it (most of us!).
The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (the “Act”) received Royal Assent on 28 April 2016 and is expected to come into force by the end of the year.
The Act is only the second piece of primary consolidation legislation to have passed through the Scottish Parliament and brings together the various laws on personal insolvency into a single piece of legislation.
At the moment, the law is rather unwieldy and difficult to follow in practice.
On November 7, 2014, the City of Detroit’s historic Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy case culminated with the confirmation of the City’s proposed plan of adjustment (after eight amendments), and the approval of various related settlements. Although little more than a month has passed, a great deal of ink has already been spilled on what the City’s bankruptcy case means, particularly from the viewpoint of the municipality and its citizens.
The Momentive Decisions: Cram-Down Interest Rates and Make-Whole Mania
On Saturday, June 28, Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla signed into law the euphemistically-named “Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act” (the “Act”).
Last week at the American Bankruptcy Institute meeting in Washington, D.C., our firm co-sponsored and participated in a mini-conference on bankruptcies that involve FCC-regulated companies. This was an opportunity to spend a few hours contemplating issues that practicing attorneys rarely get a chance to reflect upon in the midst of heated, multi-party bankruptcy proceedings.
According to a recent report issued by the American Bankruptcy Institute, there was a 24 percent drop in business bankruptcy filings in the United States last year, resulting in the fewest filings since 2006. The larger corporate filings in 2013 were not the typical “mega” filings of years past. Unlike Lehman, Chrysler, Tribune, MF Global and others, the chapter 11 “mega-cases” filed in 2013 were smaller and less well known in the general business community. Among the more prominent were Cengage Learning, Excel Maritime, and Exide Technologies.
A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).
On March 12, 2009, Gerald Rote and Annalisa Rote loaned $38,000 to their daughter and son-in-law to buy a home. The Rotes took a mortgage on the home but, to avoid the expense of publicly recording the mortgage, they did not immediately record it. Rather, they waited two years, until May 4, 2011, to record the mortgage. Seven months later, however, the daughter and son-inlaw filed a bankruptcy petition.