In the case of Iskon Infra Engineering Private Limited v.
Met een recent arrest van 11 juni 2024 zorgt het hof te Brussel voor een ommekeer in het faillissementsrecht. Het hof oordeelde dat ook een hypotheek, gevestigd op initiatief van de kredietverstrekker op grond van een notariële volmacht na datum van het faillissement, tegenstelbaar is aan de boedel. Het hof gaat daarmee in tegen eerder gevestigde rechtspraak en rechtsleer, die een zeer ruime interpretatie gaf aan de artikelen XX.110 en volgende van het Wetboek Economisch Recht (WER).
Today, in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court held that debtors who paid fees in bankruptcy cases administered by the U.S. Trustee Program are not entitled to any relief, even though the Court previously ruled that those debtors had been unconstitutionally overcharged. This decision is the culmination of several years of litigation concerning differential fee structures across judicial districts.
When Cash is King but it's running short - what do directors need to know?
The general sentiment for 2024 is that challenges still lie ahead for business owners before things will improve. How will those challenges impact your business?
Directors need to be aware that in times of doubtful solvency the law requires them to at least have regard to the interests of creditors as well as shareholders, and getting it wrong can attract significant personal liability.
The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 (the “Employment Act”) was signed into law on 9 May 2024 albeit the provisions have not yet commenced. The General Scheme of Companies (Corporate Governance, Enforcement and Regulatory Provisions) Bill 2024 (the “Companies Bill”) was published in March this year and is expected to be enacted later this year. Both make significant changes to the restructuring and insolvency regime. We will continue to keep you apprised of developments regarding the commencement of the Act.
It’s a tough time for Australian businesses. This is evident by the uplift in insolvencies, approximately 1,100 insolvencies occurred in March 2024 – the highest monthly figure since 2015[1]. Now more than ever, it is crucial for businesses to implement effective debt recovery practices to maximise cashflow.
The market is experiencing almost unprecedented levels of liquidity, across public and private debt and equity capital markets. This is staunching restructuring activity, which might otherwise be expected to rise (not least as pandemic-related government support starts to withdraw). There are also many companies still sponsoring defined benefit pension schemes. The statutory and regulatory landscape in this area has evolved significantly in recent months – with new powers for regulators, and new restructuring tools for debtors.
Since the inception of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code“), the debt resolution regime in India has witnessed not only a paradigm shift from the conventional ‘debtor in possession’ to a progressive ‘creditor in control’ but has also undergone a significant transformation, marking a departure from its traditional labyrinthine processes to a more streamlined and effective framework.
We have a direct statutory conflict:
- one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
- a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.
Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.
- That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]
Statutory Conflict
The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):
Case law relating to the potential recharacterisation of fixed charges tends not to come around too often, but the recent case of Re UKCloud Ltd follows (relatively) hot on the heels of the Avanti Communications case, discussed here.
The case background