On 28 June 2010 a motion was passed by the European Parliamentary Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs requesting that the European Parliament pass a resolution enabling the European Commission to prepare draft legislation on cross-border crisis management in the financial sector. The proposed framework would encompass amongst other things:  

The validity of an assignment of receivables cross-border depends on the law that applies to the assignment.

What might amount to a valid assignment in one jurisdiction, does not mean, that it is valid in another and where there are competing claims to the receivables and competing jurisdictions, the question of which law applies and therefore whether there has been a valid assignment significantly affects the ability of the assignee to rely on the assignment.

In an important decision for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit recently held that the proper “cramdown” valuation of a secured creditor’s collateral is its replacement value, regardless of whether the foreclosure value would generate a higher valuation of the collateral. The appellate court’s decision has the potential to significantly impact lenders that include certain types of restrictions on the use of the collateral (such as low income housing requirements) in their financing documents.

Starting from March 1, 2017, the Slovak personal insolvency regime will change. The new system aims to make personal insolvency available to a wider debtor audience, while keeping it simple and cost efficient. Today, only individuals with assets over €1,659.70 can seek declaration of bankruptcy. Otherwise, the proceedings could be stopped and the doors to a “fresh start” closed for “poor” debtors (also called No Income No Asset debtors (NINA)).

We recently published a blog identifying issues which cryptocurrency pose in insolvencies; not least identifying and classifying it, how to take control of it and realising value for the insolvency estate.

Given cryptocurrencies are global, the question of how to classify cryptocurrency on insolvency is not limited to just one jurisdiction.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit provides additional guidance with respect to jurisdictional disputes that bankruptcy professionals often see in practice. In particular, the Gupta v. Quincy Med. Ctr., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9814 (1st Cir. June 2, 2017) case analyzed whether a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a post-sale dispute among a purchaser of estate assets and former employees of the debtors.

Judge Carey in the District of Delaware recently ruled on an intriguing question—can a defendant in a preference action reduce the amount of a recoverable preference by setting off the value of an allowed administrative expense claim?. Though not late-breaking news, this case provides a thorough examination of the essential character of administrative expense claims.

In a recent report by INSOL International, only 5% of insolvency practitioners (“IPs”) said that they had a “comprehensive or practical/working or understanding” of crypto-currency.

So with over 4,000 types of cryptocurrency now available and as payment technology continues to develop, we look at some issues facing IPs, including

• • How to identify cryptocurrency
  • How to categorise it
  • How to take control of it and sell it; and
  • What value does it have

What are cryptocurrencies?

The European Association of Certified Turnaround Professionals (EACTP) organized an evening of debate about the proposed new European Directive on business insolvency held in Brussels on May 2nd at the offices of Squire Patton Boggs. Salla Saastamoinen, the European Commission Director of the Civil and Commercial Justice Unit, attended the event called A New European Restructuring Regime in a Changing World and met turnaround professionals from across Europe.

Recently, in Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. (“Caesars”), U.S. Bankruptcy Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar denied payment of indenture trustee Wilmington Trust’s attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the Debtors’ motion to approve a settlement. The U.S. Trustee objected to payment arguing that the Debtor could not rely on 11 U.S.C. § 363 (seeking settlement approval) as authority to pay Wilmington Trust’s fees and costs. Sustaining the U.S.