Poor Chicago.
Unlike the result for Chicago’s traffic ticket income in Fulton v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to rescue Chicago in City of Chicago v. Mance (Case No. 22-268; Cert. denied, 11/21/2022).[Fn. 1]
As the economic crisis continues to deepen, several of our contributors in South Europe have been focusing on matters relating to insolvency in the transport industry.
When an individual or company purchases property in England or Wales, the legal title will transfer once the purchaser is listed as the registered proprietor at the Land Registry. However, what happens when, pending the registration of the legal interest, the seller company (who is still the registered proprietor) is dissolved? This is a risk seldom contemplated when purchasing property, but can have important consequences for the title of the property.
We are heading into the holiday season. It’s a Wonderful Life will be on television. And cryptocurrency bankruptcies will be in the news. Yesterday, BlockFi filed for bankruptcy. What does a seventy year old Frank Capra movie – about a bank run in a small town during the Great Depression – tell us about the latest crypto platform’s liquidity crisis? Will depositors get their money back? Is there any insurance for the creditors?
BlockFi Inc. and eight of its affiliates followed the paths of crypto platforms Voyager, Celsius and FTX by filing for bankruptcy protection. The case, commenced in the District of New Jersey, on November 28, 2022, is off to a fast start. BlockFi filed a plan of reorganization on the first day of its case. The plan proposes a standalone restructuring but allows the company to toggle to a sale of all or substantially all of the company’s assets. The company had its first day hearing in New Jersey on November 29th and expressed an interest in exiting bankruptcy expeditiously.
Our review of 2022 brings you right up-to-date with the latest developments in restructuring and insolvency law in Hong Kong and the mainland.
One of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges—FTX Trading Ltd.—and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy earlier this month.1 While the full impact of the FTX bankruptcy is not yet clear, various responses from the executive branch and federal and state regulators indicate that, in the short term, agencies will continue to use their existing authorities to seek information about the practices of crypto market participants and to enforce existing rules to protect customers and avoid further market contagion.2 The following statements may indicate what market
In the course of dispute resolution, a creditor may be confronted with a situation where the corporate debtor is unable to repay its debts. In this case, can the creditor hold the shareholders of the company liable as well? This still depends on whether there is any contractual or legal basis for holding the shareholders liable.
简介
英国最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中颁下了重要裁决，其重要之处在于最高法院深入探讨了董事考虑债权人权益的责任，是只需出现真正的无力偿债风险便已触发，还是在相当可能或濒临无力偿债时才触发。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辩人为AWA公司（「该公司」）的董事。于2009年5月，他们安排该公司向该公司唯一股东（「第一答辩人」）派发1.35亿欧元的股息（「该股息」），以抵销第一答辩人结欠该公司的债务。该公司在支付该股息时，其资产负债表及现金流均处于具偿债能力的状况。然而，该公司有一项与污染相关而金额未定的长期或然负债，导致该公司产生未来可能无力偿债的真正风险。
INTRODUCTION