The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held on Aug. 3, 2012, that equitable considerations could not prevent a creditor's recouping amounts owed to it by a chapter 7 debtor. Terry v. Standard Ins. Co. (In re Terry), 2012 WL 3139364, *4 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2012). Reversing the bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), the Eighth Circuit explained that "once a party meets the same-transaction test . . . a court should not impose an additional 'balancing of the equities' requirement" on the doctrine of recoupment. Id.
The ability to discharge debts (i.e., liability on a claim) is essential to the fundamental goal of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code – providing debtors with a fresh start by resolving all claims that arose before confirmation of the debtor’s plan of reorganization. In determining the universe of debts eligible for discharge, Third Circuit courts labored for many years underAvellino v. M. Frenville Co. (In re M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir.
Giuliano v. Shorenstein Company, LLC (In re Sunset Aviation, Inc.), Adv. No. 11- 50965, Bankr. No. 09-10778, 2011 WL 4002429 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 7, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Effective March 31, 2009 (not April 1), Georgia lien law is officially set to undergo a series of substantial changes, as a result of Governor Sonny Purdue signing Senate Bill 374 into law. These changes are significant and exist throughout the lien statutes. Many of the revisions require new, very specific procedures and forms that must be precisely followed in order to prevent waiving lien rights. Although the new lien law is not technically retroactive, it appears that several of the requirements could pertain to liens filed prior to March 31.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2010 Term (which extends from October 2010 to October 2011, although the Court hears argument only until June or July) officially got underway on October 4, three days after Elena Kagan was formally sworn in as the Court’s 112th Justice and one of three female Justices sitting on the Court.
On 26 January 2011 the European Commission declared the so-called Restructuring Clause (Sanierungsklausel) (Sec. 8c (1a) of the German Corporate Income Tax Act (CTA)) as inconsistent with EU funding guidelines. The decision of the European Commission is criticized by national experts and stresses the German economy with a hardly tolerable uncertainty as regards tax issues in restructurings.
Does the German restructuring clause of Sec. 8c para. 1a CTA (see our Client Alert of 10 July 2009) conform to European Community law? This will be analyzed by the European Commission which has — by circular of 24 February — announced the initiation of a formal examination procedure (Art. 108 para. 2 TFEU, former Art. 88 para. 2 of the EC Treaty). Already before completion of the formal procedure, corporations with unrestricted and restricted tax liability in Germany may face farreaching consequences.
A. The Restructuring Clause of Sec. 8c para. 1a CTA
The ability to discharge debts (i.e., liability on a claim) is essential to the fundamental goal of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code – providing debtors with a fresh start by resolving all claims that arose before confirmation of the debtor’s plan of reorganization. In determining the universe of debts eligible for discharge, Third Circuit courts labored for many years underAvellino v. M. Frenville Co. (In re M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held on Aug. 3, 2012, that equitable considerations could not prevent a creditor's recouping amounts owed to it by a chapter 7 debtor. Terry v. Standard Ins. Co. (In re Terry), 2012 WL 3139364, *4 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2012). Reversing the bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), the Eighth Circuit explained that "once a party meets the same-transaction test . . . a court should not impose an additional 'balancing of the equities' requirement" on the doctrine of recoupment. Id.
The British Columbia Provincial government recently passed the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (the “Act”). The Act was aimed at protecting RRSPs to afford self-employed individuals the same protection from creditors as those individuals who have planned for their retirement through a registered pension plan.
To achieve this purpose, the Act amends a number of statutes in British Columbia.