On 25 October 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in a ground-breaking judgment in Royal IHC that a WHOA plan may change creditors’ and shareholders’ rights but cannot impose more onerous obligations. More specifically, the lenders cannot be compelled to provide new financing or to accept new terms and still provide new funds under previously committed credit facilities (i.e., undrawn commitments).

An involuntary bankruptcy can be a powerful tool in a creditor's arsenal. Involuntary bankruptcies are rarely filed, however, because of the significant risk of liability for the petitioning creditor if the case is dismissed. A creditor considering filing an involuntary bankruptcy must understand the requirements for filing involuntary bankruptcy cases, which are strictly construed and applied, and be mindful of the associated risks.

Tanner De Witt acted for Chan Ho Yin (also known as Michael Chan) of Kroll (HK) Ltd and Elaine Hanrahan, the Joint Liquidators of Bull’s-Eye Limited (in Liquidation) (“BEL”) which was wound up in the BVI on 15 January 2024. BEL is a company connected to Hua Han Health Industry Holdings Limited (formerly listed on Main Board of the HKEx, stock code 587) (“Hua Han”). Michael Chan is also a one of the joint and several liquidators of Hua Han. BEL held roughly 30% shares in Hua Han and its sole shareholders and directors were the founders of Hua Han.

Should a corporation be affixed with the fraudulent or other nefarious intent of its directing minds? The answer to this question is of key importance in several contexts where the “intent” of the corporation leads to specific legal consequences.

Section 548 of the bankruptcy code authorizes a trustee, debtor, or other appropriate party to avoid actual and constructive fraudulent transfers that occurred prepetition. In order to prove that a transfer was an actual fraudulent transfer, the trustee (or another appropriate plaintiff) must prove that the debtor made the transfer “with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any entity to which to debtor was or became…indebted.” 11 U.S.C. §548(a)(1)(A).

Does a Chapter 7 debtor have appellate standing to protect the homestead exemption?

That’s an issue addressed (sort of) in Karamoussayan v Massachusetts Department of Revenue (In re Karamoussayan), Case No. 22-041, First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (decided April 11, 2024).

Chronology

Here’s a chronology.

September 9, 2022 — Debtor files a voluntary Chapter 13 petition

Federal Decree-Law No. 51/2023 Promulgating the Financial Reorganisation and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) introduced a new bankruptcy regime in the UAE, but left a number of key issues to be addressed under later implementing regulations. These regulations have now been issued under Cabinet Decision No. 94/2024 on the Implementing Regulation of the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Law (the Implementing Regulations).

1 r October, 2024（No. 26） ムシス バシリ / 金子 涼一 / パップワース チャールズ / 田村 允 1. 欧州委員会、排除型市場支配的地位の濫用に関するガイドライン案を 公表 本ガイドライン案の背景 EU の機能に関する条約（Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union、以下「EU 機能条約」） 102 条は、EU の域内市場で活動する事業者による市場支配的地位の濫用を禁止しています。 2024 年 8 月 1 日、欧州委員会は、EU 機能条約 102 条の排除型市場支配的地位の濫用 （exclusionary abuse）に関するガイドライン案（以下「本ガイドライン案」）を公表しました 1。本ガイドライン案 は 2024 年 10 月 31 日を期限とした意見公募（パブリックコメント）に付されています。 本ガイドライン案は、EU 機能条約 102 条の定める排除型市場支配的地位の濫用に関する EU 裁判所 の判例について、欧州委員会の理解を整理するものであり、欧州委員会は本ガイドライン案の公表により、 「法的安定性を高め、事業者が、自らの行為について、EU 機能条約 102 条の定める排除型市場支配的 地位の濫用に該当するか否かを自ら判断することに資する」ことを意図しています 2。

Recently, in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal 10424 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue of certified copy of Order that is filed along with the appeal. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed several provisions of NCLT Rules and NCLAT Rules and held as follows:

i) Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as “certified copies” for the purpose of Rule 50 of NCLT Rules.

In re Main Street Business Funding, LLC, No. 23-2430 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2024) (Ambro, J.), the Third Circuit confirmed that an all-assets lien that extends to after-acquired property does not extend to a borrower’s commercial tort claims unless described with sufficient particularity under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). The court also confirmed that commercial tort claims can constitute proceeds of collateral, but that the commercial tort claims here did not constitute proceeds of the loan at issue in the case.

Background