Two recent decisions from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court") have further contributed to the rapidly expanding volume of chapter 15 jurisprudence. In In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 2011 WL 1998374 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011), and In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 2011 WL 1998376 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011), bankruptcy judge Burton R. Lifland rendered two decisions involving offshore "feeder funds" that invested in the massive Ponzi scheme associated with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS").

In connection with the administration of the debtors’ bankruptcy case, the trustee in Badovick v. Greenspan (In re Greenspan), No. 10-8019, 2011 Bank. LEXIS 272 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Feb.

Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.

We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .

Whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 if the foreign debtor does not satisfy the commands of both section 109 (of chapter 1) and section 1517 (of chapter 15) of the Bankruptcy Code has long been a contentious issue. As previewed at an oral argument held on March 10, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit has now waded into this thicket, setting up the possibility of a circuit-level counterweight to the Second Circuit’s seminal decision in In re Barnet.

Statutory Text

The new Bankruptcy Law (Federal Law Number 9 of 2016) is seen as a strategically improved law in comparison with previous insolvency laws. Having said that the Bankruptcy Law so far covers the following:

i. Permits organizations in money related issues and provides the chance to rearrange their issues so as to stay suitable;

ii. Companies failing to stay financially viable, offers them a chance to seek liquidation;

Insolvency Law No. 9 of 2019 enters into force from January 2020, which is the year of economic and social betting on development and aspiration for a happier and more stable country.

What is the role of the insolvency law in this context?

In March of 2019, an Emirati limited liability company (the “LLC”) had restructured its debts under the Bankruptcy Law; Federal Decree-Law No. 9 of 2016 which was first published in the Official Gazette on 29 September 2016 and came into force on 29 December 2016.

Under Chapter 4 of the Bankruptcy Law the Bankruptcy Circuit of the Abu Dhabi Primary Court oversaw the restructuring of the LLC under which had been operating in the contracting industry since 2008 and had debts exceeding eighteen times its paid-up capital.

The UAE Government recently passed legislation that substantially simplifies the procedure for obtaining a payment order.

Payment orders may offer an efficient method to obtain ex parte judgement against a debtor. They are frequently used when claiming amounts arising from bounced checks or other commercial instruments.

• Introduction The latest in the series of insolvency regime reformations in the Middle East is the new Dubai International Financial Centre insolvency law; DIFC Law 1 of 2019 (the New Law). Subject to article 1(4) of the New Law, the New Law repeals and replaces DIFC Insolvency Law 3 of 2013 (the Old Law). Article 3 of the New Law states that it applies in the jurisdiction of the DIFC, meaning that it applies to all DIFC incorporated entities. The New Law will come into force on 28 August 2019.