On October 31, the Federal Reserve Board adopted two proposed rules that would tailor how certain aspects of the post-crisis bank regulatory framework, including certain capital and liquidity requirements and other prudential standards, apply to large U.S. banking organizations. One of the rules is to be issued jointly by the FDIC, Federal Reserve and OCC. The other was issued solely by the Federal Reserve.
Background
Under German law, there are strict legal obligations for the managing directors of an insolvent company to file for insolvency. Failure to comply exposes a managing director to civil and criminal liability. It is therefore important for managing directors to know how to test whether their company is insolvent. One of the legal reasons for insolvency is illiquidity and the second senate of the German Federal Civil Court (“BGH”) has, in a decision dated 19 December 2017 (II ZR 88/16), clarified a question regarding the illiquidity test.
On 1 July 2017, a major amendment to the Czech Insolvency Act came into effect. The amendment introduces a change to the definition of insolvency – the term liquidity gap. Debtors, who are entrepreneurs and keep accounting books, will now be allowed to prove that they are able to pay their due monetary liabilities by proving the possession of a sufficient amount of available funds or by proving that they are able to obtain such funds in the near future. Thus, in simple terms, a liquidity gap means in this connection a lack of available funds for the payment of due liabilities.
On 1 July 2017 a new amendment to the Czech Insolvency Act came into force. One of the most significant changes introduced by the amendment relates to the assessment of insolvency of the debtor, performed by means of the cash-flow insolvency test.
Under Czech law, the debtor is insolvent if it has several creditors, due and payable debts for more than 30 days, and it is not able to fulfill them.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s years-long litigation against the former CEO of MF Global Holdings Ltd. has concluded with a settlement. After the brokerage firm MF Global went bankrupt in a 2011 liquidity crisis, the CFTC sued CEO Jon Corzine for dipping into nearly $1 billion of segregated client funds in an effort to obtain badly needed liquidity. The settlement requires Corzine to pay a $5 million fine out of his own pocket, rather than from insurance.
There’s no doubt that are some serious financial repercussions in declaring bankruptcy, and there’s no question that your life will go through some considerable changes. If you’re in this situation, don’t be alarmed. The challenging economic times observed today means that a growing number of individuals are filing for bankruptcy. In reality, there are around 20,000 Australians every year that declare bankruptcy. So rest assured, you’re not alone.
Some businesses operate in a naturally risky environment where a major crisis event is a real possible consequence of everyday operations. What do you do when something literally blows up?
In the context of the scenario posed for the first day of the conference, this panel considered some of the obligations of the board and the officers of a near insolvent company in managing financial, regulatory, and environmental risks.
In In re NewPage Corporation, et al., Adversary Proceeding No. 13-52429 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 13, 2017), a Delaware Bankruptcy Court applied a unique defense to certain preferential transfers targeted by a liquidating trustee. The defense focuses on a commonly overlooked element of a preferential transfer, section 547(b)(5).
Preference 101
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have grown rapidly in Thailand over the past ten years, creating millions of jobs and contributing to the Kingdom’s steady economic growth. According to the 2015 annual report of the Office of SMEs Promotion (OSMEP), there were approximately 2.7 million SMEs at the end of 2015, employing around 10 million people, particularly in the tourism, construction, and wholesale sectors.