On 13 July 2010 Germany's Federal Ministry of Justice and Finance published a discussion draft of an Act for the Restructuring and Orderly Liquidation of Credit Institutions, for the Establishment of a Restructuring Fund for Credit Institutions and for the Extension of the Limitation (Restructuring Act).

Owners of small business entities are frequently required to guaranty the debts of such entities.  Those business entities might later file for Chapter 11, and may be able to achieve confirmation of a plan to restructure their indebtedness.   The question then presented is whether this confirmation event affects the separate guaranty obligations of the owners?  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explored this issue in In re: Larry

On 13 July 2010 the Federal Ministry of Justice and Finance (Bundesministerien für Justiz und Finanzen) published a discussion draft of an Act for the Restructuring and Orderly Liquidation of Credit Institutions, for the Establishment of a Restructuring Fund for Credit Institutions and for the Extension of the Limitation Period of Corporate Law Management Liability (Restructuring Act) (Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Restrukturierung und geordneten Abwicklung von Kreditinstituten, zur Errichtung eines Restrukturierungsfonds für Kreditinstitute und zur Verlängerung der Verj

On 1 April 2015, responsibility for consumer credit in the UK transferred from the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) to the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). A consequence of this was to replace the OFT’s Consumer Credit Act licencing scheme with the FCA’s authorisation scheme under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).

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.