Maryland Legal Alert for Financial Services
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland recently proposed a new local rule in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that mere retention of bankruptcy estate property by a creditor post-petition does not amount to an exercise of control over estate property in violation of the automatic stay.
Each year amendments are made to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which govern how bankruptcy cases are managed. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.
The bankruptcy process is not only a tool for enterprises when they are insolvent to tackle a difficult situation but also a tool to find ways to settle debts for creditors. In the bankruptcy case, an important participant in the bankruptcy settlement process is the asset management officer(s) (“AMO”). So, who is AMO and what role does AMO play in the bankruptcy settlement process? To answer the above questions, BLawyers Vietnam would like to present the article below.
2016年破産倒産法は、目的やプロセスの異なる様々な法律が乱立していた従前と比較して、財務的困難な状況に陥った企業を救済する上で重要な役割を果たしています。破産倒産法の初期の成功要因は種々ありますが、インドの立法府が同法を適切に解釈し、適時に改正してきたことが主な要因として挙げられます。一定の成果を上げている破産倒産法ですが、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）および会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）の機能およびプロセスの合理化には、未だ改善の余地があります。
本記事では、一見すると合理的に見える外部要因を考慮することで、債務不履行に陥った企業債務者が、法に基づく倒産処理手続に異議を唱えることができる根拠を意図せず広げてしまった可能性のある、Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd v. Union Bank of India & Ors.事件におけるNCLATの判決について考察しています。
Facts of the case
On October 12, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition for a writ of certiorari in a case challenging the doctrine of equitable mootness. Equitable mootness has been described as a “narrow doctrine by which an appellate court deems it prudent for practical reasons to forbear deciding an appeal when to grant the relief requested will undermine the finality and reliability of consummated plans of reorganization.”1 By his petition, David Hargreaves—an unsecured noteholder of debtor Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc.
The Bankruptcy Protector
In the case of In re Ricky L. Moore (19-01228), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa taught an important lesson in the context of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases[1]: do not rely on repeated assurances of payment from a friendly debtor in lieu of filing your bankruptcy proof of claim.
Part 1: A Broad Overview of Bankruptcy
‘As privileged professionals, who live by the words of the English language, lawyers have a special duty to be clear in what they say and write’
When discussing any area of law, precision is essential.
A common source of confusion amongst both lawyers and the public generally is the difference between insolvency and bankruptcy. Though you may see the terms being used interchangeably (especially in legal dramas), the two concepts are distinct.
On 10 October, the Dubai Court of First Instance issued a potentially ground-breaking judgment in respect of directors’ liability in the context of corporate insolvency.
In particular, in the matter of the liquidation of the public company Marka PJSC (“Marka”), the Court held the company’s board of directors and managers personally and jointly liable for the company’s outstanding debts, totalling close to AED 450 million.
A Practical Guide to Bankruptcy:
Part 1: A Broad Overview of Bankruptcy
‘As privileged professionals, who live by the words of the English language, lawyers have a special duty to be clear in what they say and write’[1]
When discussing any area of law, precision is essential.
The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.