In a 2021 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived nearly 100 lawsuits seeking to recover fraudulent transfers made as part of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In one of the latest chapters in that resurrected litigation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held in Picard v. ABN AMRO Bank NV (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC), 654 B.R. 224 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
第１ はじめに
破産法６７条は、破産債権者が、破産手続開始時点で破産 者に債務を負担している場合の相殺を、原則、認めています。 相殺の担保的機能に対する期待を保護するためといわれま す。
他方、破産手続の基本原則である債権者平等を損う相殺 は禁じられています。たとえば破産法７１条１項２号は、「支払 不能になった後に契約によって負担する債務を専ら破産債権 をもってする相殺に供する目的で破産者の財産の処分を内 容とする契約を破産者との間で…締結することにより破産者 に対して債務を負担した場合であって、当該契約の締結の当 時、支払不能であったことを知っていたとき」は、相殺できない と定めています。これは、破産者と破産債権者との新たな取引 等で破産債権者に債務が発生すると、破産者が債権取得の 対価を代物弁済に供したのと同視できる場合があるため、支 払不能後の代物弁済が偏頗行為否認の対象となることとの 均衡を図るものといわれます。
The variable capital company (VCC) structure was established by Singapore in 2020. Since then, Singapore has reported a total of 969 incorporated or re-domiciled VCCs representing 1,995 sub-funds, both umbrella and standalone.
One year ago, we wrote that 2022 would be remembered in the corporate bankruptcy world for the "crypto winter" that descended in November 2022 with the spectacular collapse of FTX Trading Ltd., Alameda Research, and approximately 130 other affiliated companies that ignited the meltdown of many other platforms, exchanges, lenders, and mining operations because they did business with FTX.
Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) are becoming increasingly influential, especially in M&A transactions. It is essential to consider how these regulations will affect foreign creditors, particularly those from non-EU countries. The Slovak FDI Act will have numerous implications for financing and security arrangements.
Security package
Because bankruptcy courts were created by Congress rather than under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, there is a disagreement over whether bankruptcy courts, like other federal courts, have "inherent authority" to impose sanctions for civil contempt on parties that refuse to comply with their orders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revisited this debate in In re Markus, 78 F.4th 554 (2nd Cir. 2023).
第１ はじめに
一般に、債務者が「債務の承認」を行った場合には、当該債 務の消滅時効は中断することとなります（民法147条3号1 ）が、 債務者が破産し、破産手続が開始されると、破産財団に属す る財産の管理及び処分をする権利は、破産管財人に帰属す ることになります（破産法78条1項）。
債務者本人ではない破産管財人が債務の承認をした場合 にまで、消滅時効の中断効が生じるかという問題については 従来必ずしも明確になっていませんでしたが、本決定では裁 判所がこの点に関する判断を示しており、また、破産手続のみ ならずその他の倒産手続全般でも問題となり得ることから、以 下、紹介いたします。
第２ 事案の概要
A powerful tool afforded to a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") is the power to recover pre-bankruptcy transfers that are avoidable under federal bankruptcy law (or sometimes state law) because they were either made with the intent to defraud creditors or are constructively fraudulent because the debtor-transferor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange and was insolvent at the time, or was rendered insolvent as a consequence of the transfer.
Judge Jacqueline P. Cox recently found that three Illinois attorneys violated their ethical obligations by failing to return their client’s phone calls. She thus ordered the attorneys to return half of their already-court-approved, and paid, flat fee.
In In re: Dennis Molnar, 19-bk-09525, 2024 WL 190919 (Jan. 17, 2024 N.D, Ill.), the debtor filed a petition seeking relief under chapter 13. Originally, three attorneys from the same firm represented the debtor. The attorneys appeared pursuant to a “no look,” flat-fee program for chapter 13 debtors’ attorneys.
Case Trends