What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?
Good afternoon.
Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 12, 2022.
In Optiva Inc. v. Tbaytel, the Court dismissed the appeal from an arbitrator’s decision granting summary judgment. The arbitrator had the authority to proceed by summary judgment motion, as the arbitration agreement gave the arbitrator broad powers to determine the procedure to be employed.
Federal Court Judge Cheryl Ann Kraus was ‘riding the Circuit’ and decided a regulatory takings case while sitting in the District Court, District of New Jersey captioned James v. Vornlocker. Full opinion here 2022-8-31 Vornlocker.
The case was decided on motions for summary judgment, and it appears that Plaintiff admitted most of the facts and failed to genuinely contest the remaining facts set forth in the motions.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The time-period for filing such an appeal is maximum of 45 days under the Code and 90 days under the Act.
Tribunal Supremo
Jurisprudencia de la Sala de lo Contencioso del Tribunal Supremo: El adquirente de la unidad productiva se subroga en las deudas de la Seguridad Social anteriores al concurso respecto de la totalidad de los trabajadores de la concursada.
Sentencia 577/2022 del Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso, de 17 de mayo de 2022. Ponente: José Manuel Bandrés Sánchez-Cruzat.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), if a corporate debtor is unable to pay its debts, then insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP) may be initiated against the corporate debtor and attempts are made to revive the corporate debtor by inviting resolution plans. If the revival process fails, the corporate debtor must be liquidated.
法制審議会民事執行・民事保全・倒産及び家事事件等に関する手続（IT化関係）部会（以下「部会」といいます）の第8回会議（2022年8月5日開催）において、「民事執行・民事保全・倒産及び家事事件に関する手続（IT化）の見直しに関する中間試案[1]」（以下「本試案」といいます）が取りまとめられました。現在パブリックコメント手続が実施されており、パブリックコメント期間は、2022年8月24日から2022年10月24日までになります。本試案については、その趣旨に関する詳細な説明資料として、部会事務局である法務省民事局参事官室において、「民事執行・民事保全・倒産及び家事事件等に関する手続（IT化関係）の見直しに関する中間試案の補足説明[2]」が公表されています。
１ 概要
平素は格別のご高配を賜り、厚く御礼申し上げます。 このたび、森・濱田松本法律事務所では、各分野の近時のリーガルニュースを集めて、 Client Alert 2022 年 9 月号（Vol.105）を作成いたしました。実務における一助となれば 幸いに存じます。
A February 16, 2021 decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held, in In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers, 520 F. Supp. 3d 390, that lenders who received almost $900 million mistakenly wired to them by Citibank (the administrative agent for a $1.8-billion syndicated seven-year term loan to Revlon [2016 Loan]) were entitled to keep the money.