The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an important decision that provides further support for a holistic analysis when applying the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbors.” In Mark Holliday, the Liquidating Trustee of the BosGen Liquidating Trust v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., 20 Civ. 5404 (Sept. 13, 2021), the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s state law fraudulent conveyance claims against the defendants as protected from avoidance by the “safe harbors” of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Bankruptcy Protector
Bankruptcy law makes possible the financial rehabilitation of bankrupt individuals by discharging them from the burden of past debts upon the equitable distribution of their assets among their creditors. One of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”) is to give honest but unfortunate debtors a fresh start in circumstances where it is prudent to forgive the debt or liability that resulted from inadvertence, negligence, or incompetence.
Current U.S. bankruptcy law gives companies wide discretion to file a bankruptcy in the venue of their choice. A company can file for bankruptcy in any federal district where it has its “domicile, residence, principal place of business in the United States, or principal assets in the United States” or where an affiliate of the company has a pending bankruptcy case. Often a company whose business primarily is in California will file bankruptcy in another state where it might have a small corporate affiliate.
In the recent decision of Paragon Offshore, No. 16-10386 (CSS), 2021 (Bankr. D. Del. June 28, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the court) addressed the issue of whether the Office of the United States Trustee (OUST) could collect its quarterly fees against assets that were previously transferred to a litigation trust (the litigation trust) free and clear of any and all claims, liens and other encumbrances pursuant to a confirmed plan of liquidation.
The Bankruptcy Protector
Following its approval on 5th August 2021 by the Council of Ministers, the Law-Decree n. 118 was published on 24th August into the G.U. n. 202 about the topic of "Urgent measures in the field of business crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures in the field of justice".
Firstly, the Law-Decree postpones the entry into force of the Italian Crisis Code until 16th May 2022 (Art. 1, letter a), further postponing to 31 December 2023 the “crisis alert related procedures” introduced by Article 12 of the Crisis Code.
A seguito dell’approvazione avvenuta il 5 agosto 2021 da parte del Consiglio dei ministri, è stato pubblicato il 24 agosto in G.U. n 202 il Decreto-legge n. 118 in tema di “Misure urgenti in materia di crisi d’impresa e di risanamento aziendale, nonché ulteriori misure urgenti in materia di giustizia”.
Il Decreto in primo luogo differisce l’entrata in vigore del Codice della Crisi al 16 maggio 2022 (art. 1, lett. a), posticipando ulteriormente al 31 dicembre 2023 le procedure di allerta della crisi introdotte dall'art. 12 CCI.
主に、債権者が直面している不良債権の回収問題を解決するため、2016年破産倒産法は制定されました。 本FAQでは、破産倒産法の概要、関連諸手続き等について扱っています。
1. 破産倒産法が適用されるのはどのような場合ですか？
会社、有限責任事業組合、組合、個人の倒産、清算、任意整理、破産において適用されます。
2. 破産倒産法の目的は？
財務的困難に陥っている会社の再編成および倒産処理の実施です。
3. 破産倒産法において規定されている制度的枠組みは？
Chapter 11 plans of reorganization provide creditors with recoveries (cash or new securities) in exchange for a release and discharge of all claims against the debtor. Many Chapter 11 plans go a step further to release claims against related entities and persons who are not debtors in the case. Members of Congress have recently proposed legislation that could prohibit such nonconsensual third-party releases.