In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.

The Prime Minister of Vietnam recently issued Decision No. 242, approving Vietnam's Restructuring Plan of the insurance business market until 2020, oriented towards 2025 (Plan) following the final proposal of the Ministry of Finance (MOF)'s Insurance Supervisory Authority of Vietnam.1

When a plaintiff obtains a judgment from the court, that party is normally precluded from starting another lawsuit seeking the same judgment debt from the defendant.

There is now a divergence between New South Wales and Victorian authority on whether a company in liquidation may make a claim under Security of Payment legislation. The common law position in NSW is now that a company in liquidation can bring a Security of Payment claim. This decision will be rendered somewhat academic in NSW following enactment of legislation to come into force on a (currently unspecified) date in 2019 which has the effect of overriding this decision.

The enforcement of a lender’s claim for a make-whole premium in a chapter 11 case has created significant controversy among legal practitioners and the courts. Notably, the three circuit courts of appeal that have addressed make-whole claims, i.e. the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits, have issued conflicting decisions on the nature of these claims and their allowance under the Bankruptcy Code. In this post we provide a brief summary of make-whole premiums and address the controversy among the circuits.

In McGoey (Re), 2019 ONSC 80, Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found trusts over two properties held by a bankrupt were void as shams. In his decision, Justice Penny noted that had he not found the trusts to be sham trusts, he would still have set them aside as fraudulent conveyances, making us ask: “what is the difference between a sham trust and a fraudulent conveyance?”

Russia's Supreme Court guidelines reduce high net worth individuals' ("HNWIs") asset protection opportunities and potentially create risks of additional creditor claims against HNWIs after divorce and asset division between the HNWI and his/her spouse.1

In addition, these guidelines enable third parties, notably creditors of the ex-spouse, to get access to information regarding the HNWI's disputed assets. We summarize the most important points of these guidelines below.

Key developments

KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.

Recent Development

The Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency added a provisional article on consumer loan restructuring to the Regulation on Banks' Loan Transactions and the Regulation on Establishment and Activities of Financial Leasing, Factoring and Financing Companies. Pursuant to the provisional article, consumer loans whose principal and/or interest payments became overdue before February 10, 2019 can be restructured to a maximum of sixty months at the borrower's request.

KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.