Section 105 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, titled “Power of Court,” is often cited and used as a “catch-all” provision when requesting certain relief or when a bankruptcy court enters an order granting (or denying) certain relief not prescribed by a particular provision of the Bankruptcy Code. That section provides that a “court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title . . .

ЗМІСТ

Наприкінці 2019 року набув чинності Кодекс України з процедур банкрутства («Кодекс»), який встановив обов’язок керівника юридичної особи ініціювати перед засновниками (учасниками) питання щодо загрози неплатоспроможності підприємства, а за результатами розгляду (за необхідності) звернутися до господарського суду з заявою про відкриття провадження у справі про банкрутство протягом місяця з моменту виникнення загрози неплатоспроможності.

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia with relatively few variations, sets out, among other things, the rules to be followed when obtaining a security interest in personal property collateral to secure a loan. The basic premise of Article 9 is that if the lender follows the rules, it should be protected against third parties, including other creditors or a bankruptcy trustee, who would seek to challenge the lender’s security interest or the priority of the security interest.

The Bankruptcy Protector

The Bankruptcy Protector

Most bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the intentionally broad scope of discovery under Bankruptcy Rule 2004. However, there are limits to this discovery and the “pending proceeding” rule can be a useful tool to limit the scope of discovery in the appropriate circumstances.

Bankruptcy Rule 2004

Judge Craig Whitley’s recent transfer of the LTL Management case will bring a high-profile "Texas Two-Step" chapter 11 bankruptcy to New Jersey, and it may open a new chapter in how courts approach the novel transaction designed to isolate and address certain mass-tort liabilities.

In its much-discussed decision, City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago (“City”) was not in violation of Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code for failing to release an impounded car to a debtor in bankruptcy.

Debtor's Right to Consensual Sale of Seized Property

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, the Law numbered 7343 on the Amendment of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code and Some Other Codes were promulgated in the Official Gazette numbered 31675 and entered into force on the date of promulgation in accordance with Article 5 of the same code.

Although several changes have been made regarding mentioned code, in the compulsory enforcement system for the first time. The debtor is authorized to consensually sell the seized property.

5. Yargı Paketi kapsamında 30.11.2021 tarih ve 31675 sayılı Resmî Gazete’de yayımlanarak yürürlüğe giren 7343 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun (“7343 sayılı Kanun”) ile, 4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu ve 5395 sayılı Çocuk Koruma Kanunu gibi diğer kanunların yanı sıra, 2004 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanunu’nda (“İİK”) pek çok önemli değişiklik yapılmıştır.