On July 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit partially affirmed and partially reversed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA suit. The district court reviewed plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA, which alleged that defendants violated the bankruptcy court’s order discharging his debt and knowingly filed a baseless debt collection lawsuit.
HopgoodGanim Lawyers recently acted for R.W Pascoe Pty Ltd in successfully setting aside the deed of company arrangement (DOCA) proposed by Crimson Fresh Produce Pty Ltd.
The underestimated danger of personal liability
Just as "The Seven Deadly Sins" according to historian Sebastian Haffner (1964) led to the downfall of the German Empire in 1918, there are seven deadly sins for the management of a GmbH, GmbH & Co. KG or stock corporation in connection with crisis and insolvency. Although these do not result in the fall of an empire, they do result in the personal liability of the management. Moreover, that often leads to the destruction of the economic existence.
Misled or defrauded shareholders may rank equally with creditors in liquidations of insolvent funds
KEY POINTS
In a significant order passed on June 28, 2023, in the case of Ronak Industries vs.
On 29 June 2023, Mr Justice Michael Green in the High Court sanctioned a Part 26A restructuring plan proposed by First Clubs Limited (Fitness First), a wholly owned subsidiary of Maddox Holdings Limited, notwithstanding challenges from certain opposing creditors.
Die unterschätzte Gefahr persönlicher Haftung
Ähnlich wie „Die sieben Todsünden“ nach dem Historiker Sebastian Haffner (1964) im Jahr 1918 zum Untergang des deutschen Kaiserreichs geführt haben, gibt es für den Geschäftsleiter einer GmbH, GmbH & Co. KG oder Aktiengesellschaft sieben Todsünden im Zusammenhang mit Krise und Insolvenz. Diese haben zwar nicht einen Reichsuntergang, aber die persönliche Haftung der Geschäftsführung zur Folge. Und das bedeutet oftmals die Vernichtung der wirtschaftlichen Existenz.
はじめに
「金融かわら版～担保法制の見直しに関する中間試案①～」においては、法制審議会担保法制部会（以下、「担保法制部会」といいます。）の2022年12月6日の第29回会議において取りまとめられた「担保法制の見直しに関する中間試案」（以下、「中間試案」といいます。）の第1章「担保権の効力」及び第2章「担保権の対抗要件及び優劣関係」につき、中間試案とともに公表された担保法制の見直しに関する中間試案の補足説明（以下、「補足説明」といいます。）や、その後に公表された担保法制部会資料等も踏まえて、特に金融実務の観点から重要と思われる点を中心に紹介いたしました。本稿では、それに引き続き、中間試案の第３章「担保権の実行」、第4章「担保権の倒産手続における取扱い」及び第５章「その他」のうち、金融実務及び倒産実務の観点から重要と考えられる項目を紹介します。
個別動産を目的とする新たな規定に係る担保権の実行
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida created a three-factor test to help determine the ownership interests of social media accounts. The court in In re Vital Pharm[1] found that (1) documented property interests, (2) control over access, and (3) use, each play a role in establishing ownership over social media accounts.