In many decisions involving US chapter 15 cases, the bankruptcy court’s principal focus will be on what is the debtor’s center of main interests (COMI). An ancillary issue is whether it is appropriate to create COMI to obtain the benefit of a more favorable jurisdiction to restructure a company’s debt (otherwise known as “COMI shifting”).

Russia's bankruptcy law (the Law) has been amended to expand the list of persons who may be held vicariously liable for a bankrupt's debts and clarify the grounds for such liability.1

Definition of controlling person clarified

On 25 April 2017, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a decree approving the Law on Amendments to the Bankruptcy Law (the Amendments).

The Amendments incorporate the definition of related parties to the debtor in accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the Civil Code). The related parties include the persons described in Article 49-1.1 of the Civil Code as well as individuals dismissed from the debtor’s management bodies within one year prior to the beginning of bankruptcy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in Mastan v. Salamon (In re Salamon) that an undersecured creditor with a nonrecourse claim lost the right to assert a deficiency claim under section 1111(b) of the Bankruptcy Code when a senior secured creditor foreclosed on and sold its collateral during the bankruptcy case.

On 25 April 2017, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a decree approving the Law on Amendments to the Bankruptcy Law (the Amendments).

The Amendments incorporate the definition of related parties to the debtor in accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the Civil Code). The related parties include the persons described in Article 49-1.1 of the Civil Code as well as individuals dismissed from the debtor's management bodies within one year prior to the beginning of bankruptcy.

Third party releases in a chapter 11 plan have become fairly common in the United States. A recent decision by the Delaware District Court in Opt-Out Lenders v. Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC (In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC), however, questions whether the bankruptcy court has the authority to approve nonconsensual third party releases as part of confirmation of a chapter 11 plan.

It has become increasingly common for companies needing to restructure to open restructuring / insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction outside of where their centre of corporate control is located or assets are concentrated. Forum shopping in a restructuring context is becoming more common place, however it also remains highly controversial. The panelists at the INSOL breakout session, A Hitchhikers Guide of Forum Shopping, considered what makes a good forum for restructuring / insolvency, and whether forum shopping is desirable or undesirable.

Introduction

The Mexican insolvency and bankruptcy law (“Ley de Concursos Mercantiles” or “LCM“) that came into effect on May 12, 2000, abrogated the Mexican Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments Law. One of the stated purposes of the LCM was to mitigate the impact that globalization and the free market had on Mexican corporations, especially after ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. The LCM, therefore, seeks to preserve businesses facing a general default on the payment of their obligations and thereby preserve jobs in Mexico.

In Water Matrix Inc. v Carnevale, Justice Sanfilippo found that a consent judgment may survive bankruptcy if it arises from a claim that is based in fraud. This allowed a company that was defrauded by a former employee to continue to enforce the company’s judgment after bankruptcy.

Background