Foreign judgments may be utilized in Mexico either: 1) as evidence, 2) as a binding resolution, or 3) as a resolution to be enforced. In the first case, the foreign resolution is utilized as evidence of facts but not of law, in the second as evidence of law (res judicata), and in the third as a resolution to be enforced.

In the recent opinion In re PT Bakrie Telecom TBK, 2021 WL 1439953, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York provided some further guidance on what constitutes a “collective proceeding” for purposes of achieving recognition of a foreign proceeding under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. This post will address the collective nature of the proceeding at issue. In a future post we will address other important elements of Judge Lane’s decision.

Today Ukraine continues to undergo the reform of the bankruptcy system, aimed at improving the business environment and increasing the investment attractiveness of the country. The bankruptcy proceeding seems like a major challenge for a creditor, as it is usually a tedious and time-consuming process. In order to speed it up and make it more efficient, the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine was adopted in 2019 (hereinafter — the “Code”). One of the objectives of the Code is to satisfy creditors’ claims. But it also aims to protect debtors’ rights.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the National Rifle Association’s (“NRA”) bankruptcy case on May 11, finding that the case was not filed in good faith. In his opinion, Judge Harlin Hale found that there was cause for dismissal because the case was filed “to gain unfair litigation advantage and … to avoid a state regulatory scheme,” neither of which he considered to be a purpose intended or sanctioned by the Bankruptcy Code.

The recent Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies case examines how a family home is dealt with following sequestration of an individual. The sheriff's comments about the case suggest there could be room for improvement in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, to make the process clearer for everyone involved.

Case background

Das Insolvenzrecht ist wieder in Kraft gesetzt. Die wenigen noch geltenden pandemiebedingten Ausnahmetatbestände gelten seit dem 01.05.2021 nicht mehr. Jetzt droht vielen Unternehmen aufgrund der Covid-Pandemie die Insolvenz.

Aufgrund der Covid-Pandemie in eine wirtschaftliche Schieflage geraten zu sein, ist keine Schande. Was ist jetzt zu tun, wenn das eigene Unternehmen in Schieflage geraten ist? Wir geben einen kurzen Überblick darüber, welche Insolvenzverfahren es gibt, wie sie ablaufen und was genau eine Insolvenzverschleppung eigentlich ist.

On March 19, in a matter of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) held that triangular setoff is not permissible in bankruptcy due to Bankruptcy Code Section 553(a)’s mutuality requirement, and that parties cannot evade that requirement by contracting around it. See In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 990 F.3d 748 (3d Cir. 2021).

In a guaranty, the guarantor assumes an obligation in favor of a creditor to pay in the place of the principal in the event of default (conditional, secondary obligation). A guaranty is a separate contract from the contract by which the principal assumed the obligation in favor of the creditor, though dependent and accessorial to it.

Outside a bankruptcy event, the guarantor has the same defenses as the principal against the creditor. In case of payment to the creditor, the guarantor has the right to repeat against the principal.

The automatic stay provided under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is an injunction, arising when a bankruptcy case is filed, which prevents all proceedings or actions against the debtor or the property of the estate without court permission - the so-called “lifting of the stay”.[1]

In a March 2021 decision in the jointly administered bankruptcy cases of Fencepost Productions, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, Judge Dale L.