The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Re Ipagoo LLP, the court provided welcome clarity on the status of e-money holders’ claims under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR). In brief, the Court of Appeal held that the EMR do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders. The court confirmed, however, that e-money holders will still enjoy priority status in respect of their e-money creditor claims (crucially) whether or not their funds have been duly segregated from the general pool of assets, as required under the EMR.

The Regulation on the Procedure for Sales to be Made in the Electronic Environment pursuant to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and the Regulation Amending the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Regulation (“Regulations”) were published in Official Gazette dated 8 March 2022 and numbered 31772, entering into force on the same day.

İcra ve İflâs Kanunu Uyarınca Elektronik Ortamda Yapılacak Satışların Usulü Hakkında Yönetmelik ile İcra ve İflâs Kanunu Yönetmeliğinde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönetmelik ("Yönetmelikler") 8 Mart 2022 tarihli ve 31772 sayılı Resmî Gazete'de yayımlanarak aynı gün yürürlüğe girdi. 

On April 12, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a blog post titled “Busting myths about bankruptcy and private student loans.” In the blog post, the CFPB argues that certain private education loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. Specifically, the CFPB argues that the following private student loans can be discharged without a showing of undue hardship and an adversary proceeding:

Recently, the Second Circuit became the first federal circuit court to rule that the federal government could deny a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan to a debtor in bankruptcy solely because of an applicant’s bankruptcy status.[1] Prior to the Second Circuit’s decision in Springfield Hospital, Inc. v.

The National Security Investment Act 2021 (the “Act”) came into effect on 4 January 2022 and introduced a new UK investment screening regime focused on national security risks (the “NSI Regime”). It is similar to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) regime. The Act is wide reaching; it provides the UK government with the power to review and intervene in transactions that may pose a UK national security risk due to a transfer of control of sensitive entities or assets.

El reconocimiento de un derecho de separación por el atesoramiento abusivo de beneficios supone un mecanismo de protección de la minoría. Su ejercicio, sin embargo, puede resultar perjudicial para la sociedad, que tendrá que abonar al socio saliente el valor de su participación. Por este motivo, siempre se ha planteado la posibilidad de enervar, de algún modo, el ejercicio del derecho. La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 25 de enero se ocupa de un caso de esta naturaleza reconociendo, en un supuesto muy concreto, el carácter abusivo del ejercicio del derecho de separación.  

Tribunal Supremo

Calificación de un crédito en el concurso de un hipotecante no deudor que es además fiador solidario. Cumplida la contingencia el crédito debe reconocerse como privilegiado especial (art. 270.1º TRLC)

Financial support for businesses impacted by COVID-19, legislative provisions (such as the statutory relaxation to insolvent trading liability) and general creditor leniency have resulted inhistorically low insolvency appointments during the last two years.