13 ноября 2015 года был подписан Закон РК «О внесении изменений и дополнений в некоторые законодательные акты Республики Казахстан по вопросам реабилитации и банкротства» (далее – «Закон»), положения которого введены в действие 29 ноября 2015 года. Закон предусматривает поправки в Гражданский процессуальный кодекс РК, Налоговый кодекс РК, Закон РК «О реабилитации и банкротстве» и Закон РК «Об исполнительном производстве и статусе судебных исполнителей».

The recent financial crisis has resulted in events that once seemed impossible. Recently, in the federal government’s attempts to bail out the auto industry, an event unprecedented in American history almost occurred: the forced subordination of existing secured debt to new loans issued by the federal government. If the government were to revive this concept in future bailouts and attempt to subordinate the liens of secured creditors, a suit challenging the constitutionality of such action would have a good chance of success.

The Potential For Forced Subordination

Creditors often compromise disputed claims against debtors and their guarantors. In connection with the settlement of claims against a debtor and its guarantor, the creditor may give the debtor and the guarantor written releases from further liability in exchange for a settlement payment. But what if the creditor later surrenders a portion of the payment in settlement of a preference recovery action? Can the creditor revive the guarantee notwithstanding the release?

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the “BAPCPA”) created an additional category of administrative expenses

On 13 November 2015, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Introduction of Amendments and Supplements to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Issues of Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy” (the “Law”) was signed and its provisions were put into effect on 29 November 2015.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appears to have further raised the hurdle to equitably subordinate claims. Continuing what appears to be a move toward a narrower interpretation of equitable subordination, the Seventh Circuit held that misconduct alone does not provide sufficient justification to equitably subordinate a claim; injury to the interests of other creditors is required as well.

In Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, the Supreme Court held that federal bankruptcy law does not automatically disallow claims for post-petition attorneys' fees incurred by a prepetition unsecured creditor simply because such fees are incurred in litigating issues arising under the Bankruptcy Code. The Court, however, left open the issue whether such claims may be disallowed on the basis that the attorneys' fees were incurred post-petition.

In the September, 2006 issue of Insolvency Notes, the effect of the overhaul of the bankruptcy laws in the Czech Republic was discussed. As was the case at that time, the new insolvency laws were to become effective July 1, 2007. It now appears that the effective date will be delayed. The lower house of Czech Parliament gave fast-track approval recently to a bill for delaying implementation of the new bankruptcy act by six months, to January 1, 2008. Senate and presidential approval is still needed.

Настоящий обзор представляет собой краткое изложение последних изменений в российском законодательстве и не является юридической консультацией. За консультацией по конкретному вопросу следует обращаться непосредственно к юристу. Уайт энд Кейс Романов пер., д. 4 125009 Москва Россия + 7 495 787 3000 + 7 495 787 3001 Изменения в законодательстве о банкротстве Март 2015 ClientAlert Финансовая реструктуризация и банкротство В декабре 2014 г. были внесены изменения в Федеральный закон “О несостоятельности (банкротстве)” № 127-ФЗ от 26 октября 2002 г. (“Закон о банкротстве”).

When a creditor seeks equitable relief in a bankruptcy court, must the court always follow common law principles of equity? Not according to several courts, including the Second Circuit. Concluding that the granting of equitable remedies may circumvent the Bankruptcy Code's equitable distribution system, courts have limited the application of equitable remedies in the bankruptcy context.