In a recent memorandum decision, Judge Robert S. Bardwil of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California sanctioned a Sacramento attorney and ordered him to complete a local e-filing course because he did not maintain copies of filed documents that included the original “wet” signature.
One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.
One of the key protections afforded to secured creditors under the Bankruptcy Code is the right of a holder of a secured claim to credit bid the allowed amount of its claim as part of a sale process under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Specifically, section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:
Estate professionals are under continued scrutiny. Unlike other professionals, getting paid is not simply a matter of sending a bill. The bankruptcy court, appropriately so, closely oversees the amount and timing of payment of estate professional fees. And proper disclosure under the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) is critical for all estate professionals.
On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.
Over the past few months there have been a number of insurance portfolio transfers and a winding up of a general insurer. Various judges of the Federal Court have considered aspects of the Insurance Act (Cth) 1973.
Portfolio transfers
There have been two scheme transfers of insurance portfolios from Australian branches of overseas insurers to Australian subsidiaries. While objections to the transfers were raised, the Federal Court confirmed the schemes.
Under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (the “Act”) there are two types of court supervised arrangements.
The Exempted Limited Partnership (Amendment) Law, 2009, which was enacted in March 2009 and is expected to come into effect before the end of April 2009, has made significant changes to the regime for the winding up and dissolution of exempted limited partnerships (“Partnerships”). The opportunity has also been taken to clarify certain other provisions of the Exempted Limited Partnership Law (2007 Revision) (“ELP Law”).
Winding Up and Dissolution
It has taken 12 months, but new legislative provisions are now in place to deal with the problems for representatives of incapacitated entities arising from Logan J's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Development Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1,886.
The new provisions go beyond merely addressing the outcome of PM Developments. They also introduce new obligations for representatives of incapacitated entities as well as some concessions and protections.
In line with the trend of the first reform to the Spanish Insolvency Act of 2003 carried out on March 2009 (the 2009 Reform), new amendments to the Spanish Insolvency Act (the SIA) were approved on 4 October 2011 (the Amendment). This Amendment will enter into force on 1 January 2012.