Court of Appeals Rejects Literal Construction of Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(1), Ruling Court Must Determine Whether Debtors Subjectively Made an Honest and Reasonable Attempt to Satisfy the Tax Law
In a December 17, 2015 decision in United States v. Martin (In re Martin), 2015 WL 9252590 (9th Cir. BAP 2015) the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Panel”), defined what qualifies as a tax return for dischargeability purposes, specifically disagreeing with three other Courts of Appeals.
With Law No. 132 of 6 August 2015 Italy’s parliament finally passed (with some amendments) Law Decree No. 83 of 27 June 2015 (as finally converted into law, the “Decree”), amending various provisions of Royal Decree No. 267 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Act”), the civil code and the code of civil procedure, and certain tax provisions. The amendments aim to facilitate debt restructurings, support distressed companies in their turnaround attempts, and foster quicker liquidations in bankruptcy proceedings.
On 23 June 2015, the Italian Cabinet approved Law Decree No. 83 which amends Royal Decree No. 267 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Act”), the civil code and the code of civil procedure, and certain tax provisions (the “Decree”). The amendments aim to facilitate debt restructurings, support distressed companies in their turnaround attempts, and foster quicker liquidations in bankruptcy proceedings.
Interim Financing
Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) (the “Regulation”) reforms the former European Regulation on Insolvency proceedings (EC) 1346/2000 (the “Original Regulation”). The aim of the Regulation, in particular, is to enhance the effective administration of cross-border insolvency proceedings, establishing a common framework for the benefit of all stakeholders.
The main features of the Regulation are:
The most recent decisions (by judges in Delaware and several other relevant jurisdictions) hold that fiduciary duties are owed to the corporation that the director and officer is serving and do not change whether the corporation is solvent, approaching insolvency (described as the “zone of insolvency”), or insolvent.
Since at least the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2007 landmark decision in N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92, 101 (Del.
The unitranche financing market has expanded significantly in recent years. Generally, a unitranche deal involves two lenders (or groups of lenders) that provide financing on a “first out” and “last out” basis. In conjunction with the financing, the borrower grants one lien and enters into a single credit agreement and the lenders enter into an “Agreement Among Lenders” (“AAL”). An AAL is similar to an intercreditor agreement and provides for certain rights and remedies of the lenders.
The recent case of APCOA Parking1 has set a precedent by allowing yet more non-English incorporated debtors to implement financial and corporate restructurings using English schemes of arrangement.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code limits the ability of a trustee or debtor-in-possession to avoid as a constructive fraudulent transfer or preferential transfer a transaction in which the challenged settlement payment was made through a stockbroker or a financial institution.1 Because of the broad protection granted by section 546(e) – the so-called “safe harbor” provision – parties structuring a leveraged buyout (“LBO”) or similar transaction often ensure that settlement funds flow through one of the listed institutions to inoculate the beneficiaries from a later challenge as a constr