On December 27, 2020, President Donald J. Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (“CAA”) into law. The CAA was enacted in part to expand the economic stimulus relief provided by the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) signed into law six months earlier. Like the CARES Act, the CAA temporarily modifies the Bankruptcy Code to provide greater protections for debtors and certain creditors in bankruptcy.
Almost 15 years ago, new shale and fracking technology opened areas like North Dakota and Appalachia to significant oil and gas exploration and development, but the advances also created the need for construction of pipelines and related facilities (e.g., gathering, storage, and/or transportation systems) to ensure that oil and gas could be economically moved by interstate transport to markets vital to the U.S. economy.
Following the entering into force of the Dutch Scheme on 1 January this year, allowing for court confirmation of private restructuring plans, the Dutch legal toolbox for national and international restructurings has become even more diverse. This development forms part of a broader trend in the Dutch legal framework to facilitate effective restructurings of businesses, in which context one of the key techniques is the enforcement of share security, including through credit bidding.
On December 21, 2020, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA 2021). Similar to the March 2020 CARES Act, several temporary changes to the Bankruptcy Code are included in Title X of the CAA 2021. Below, we examine four of the CAA 2021’s most significant changes to consumer bankruptcy laws.
In May 2020 three years have passed[1] since Ukraine received the last funding of nearly USD 1 billion from the International Monetary Fund (the “IMF”). The funding that the IMF allocated to Ukraine was nearly four times larger than previous funding.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s disallowance of postpetition interest at the default contract rate, holding that “the bankruptcy court erred in applying a liquidated damages analysis and ruling the default interest rate was an unenforceable penalty,” and also erred in weighing “equitable considerations” to avoid enforcing the contractual default interest rate.
Our note provides a high-level guide to securitisation transactions under English law. Written in partnership with Chambers and Partners, it forms the UK-focused section of the Chambers and Partners Global Practice Guide: Securitisation 2020.
This general guide discusses a broad range of topics to provide a helpful overview to those that are looking at a first time securitisation. It also provides guidance on a number of more detailed points to assist with those more experienced in securitisations, including recently regulatory development.
In The Toronto-Dominion Bank v Queen (2020 FCA 80), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) confirmed a Federal Court (FC) decision and ruled that a secured creditor had a statutory obligation to pay the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for a tax debt of an arm’s-length borrower because the secured creditor had received proceeds from the sale of the borrower’s property which was deemed to be held in trust by the Crown under the Excise
One of the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code is to ensure that each class of creditors is treated equally. And one of the ways that is accomplished is to allow the debtor’s estate to claw back certain pre-petition payments made to creditors. Accordingly, creditors of a debtor who files for bankruptcy are often unpleasantly surprised to learn that they may be forced to relinquish “preferential” payments they received before the bankruptcy filing.