In a January 2021 decision issued in the re-opened United Refining Company1 bankruptcy case, Judge Lopez of the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court addressed when a tort claim is deemed to arise for purposes
Entsprechend dem Grundgedanken in Hermann Hesses Ausspruch bedeuten die zahlreichen, durch die COVID-19-Pandemie verursachten Unternehmenskrisen nicht nur ein Ende, sondern bieten auch Chancen.
If two persons each become a debtor and creditor towards the other, they may declare that they mutually set off those claims. However, this general possibility can be significantly reduced when one of the debtors enters into bankruptcy proceedings.
Part 1
Without question, the top story over the last year has been the COVID-19 pandemic and its tremendous ongoing effects felt across Canada and the world.
This time has had a significant impact on Canada’s energy industry and many of the changes and developments that took place in 2020 will continue to influence trends, business decisions and the future growth of Canada’s energy industry in 2021.
In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. provides substantial support for the allowance of make-whole amounts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(2) and that such are neither interest, unmatured interest nor the economic equivalent of unmatured interest. In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., No. 16-03272, 2020 WL 6276712, *3-*4 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2020). The case also clarifies that bankruptcy courts may not permit a solvent debtor to ignore its contractual obligations to unimpaired classes of unsecured creditors.
Case Background
The National Rifle Association (“NRA”), along with its wholly owned Texas subsidiary, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on January 15, 2021 in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case already has presented several threshold issues and challenges that are of interest to both bankruptcy practitioners and the market as a whole.
Background
The Sixth Circuit recently ruled that an agricultural "multi-service finance company" had no claim to the proceeds of produce held in trust pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA")1 and could not circumvent the security interests of a senior lender. The unpublished decision,2 which relied upon established law in the Ninth, Second, and Third Circuits (among others), serves as a reminder to financers in the agribusiness space--and beyond--of the risks inherent in lending in an uncertain economic environment.
Background
对于《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》（下称“《民法典担保解释》”或“新规”）对金融资管业务的影响，我们在上篇及中篇中从担保物权受托持有、增信文件性质、上市公司对外担保、担保物权登记、抵押预告登记等角度进行了详细探析。本篇我们将从资产收益权回购交易、仲裁与申请实现担保物权程序、担保与破产衔接角度，着重介绍新规的修订及对金融资管业务的影响。择重点概括如下：
一、新规明确特定资产或资产收益权转让及回购交易中让与担保规则的处理方法
Section 546(e) of the US Bankruptcy Code, which Congress enacted to promote stability and finality in financial markets, provides a safe harbor against the avoidance of certain securities transactions. Since the safe harbor’s inclusion in the original Bankruptcy Code, Congress repeatedly has expanded its protections to a growing assortment of financial transactions involving an increasing array of parties, whose involvement in the transaction may give rise to a defense to certain avoidance actions, including constructive fraudulent transfer claims.
The COVID - 19 pandemic has had a tremendous and unprecedented impact on the global economy.To mitigate this, many governments have introduced temporary relief measures to help local businesses.