What the heck does this mean:

“(1) Debtor.—The term ‘debtor’— . . . (B) does not include— . . . (Iii) any debtor that is an affiliate of an issuer, as defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c)”

—from Subchapter V’s eligibility statute, § 1182 (emphasis added).

Since the inception of Subchapter V, I’ve been trying to figure that meaning out.

Here’s the progression of thinking:

They are all the rage: People are forming decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) as vehicles to purchase or bid on a wide range of assets—NFL teams, golf courses, fossil-fuel companies, even a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of whether directors, officers, and/or shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to a company prior to bankruptcy is commonly litigated in chapter 11 cases, as creditors look to additional sources for recovery, such as D&O insurance or “deep-pocket” shareholders, including private equity firms. The recent decision in In re AMC Investors, LLC, 637 B.R. 43 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) provides a helpful reminder of the importance of timing in bringing such claims and the use by defendants of affirmative defenses to defeat those claims.

What does the "Wagatha Christie" debacle and the restructuring tool known as a CVA have in common? Answer: ask anyone and they will tell you exactly what "team" they support. Either you are "team CVA" and to you a CVA is a very useful restructuring tool, which allows a company to reorganise its affairs in a comprehensive manner. Alternatively you are "team landlord" and a CVA is just a device which is being used tactically to shaft property stakeholders.

The High Court recently passed a decision (Bank Of India (U) Limited Vs NC Beverages Limited And Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit 0009 of 2021) highlighting the priority of a secured creditor in the winding up or liquidation of a company. The court further checked the actions by the Uganda Revenue Authority (“URA”) of seizing and disposing secured assets before they can be realised by a secured creditor on commencement of insolvency proceedings.

Background

Alex Jay, Tim Symes, Charlie Mercer and Aleks Valkov consider a recent decision relating to alleged transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s423”). Stewarts act for the fifth, sixth and eighth defendants.

Introduction

On 22 February 2022, Doyle J made a winding up order and appointed joint official liquidators in respect of GTI Holdings Limited (Company), a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The winding up order was unopposed and Doyle J was satisfied that the company was insolvent. Nevertheless, in a judgment dated 15 March 2022,  Doyle J articulated the reasons for his hesitancy in making that winding up order.

Background

IMAGINE THE FOLLOWING SCENARIO: WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING ITS LAWYERS, your firm’s major client, Hapless Client, LLC (“Hapless”) entered into a horrible one-sided contract with Sketchy Business, Inc. (“Sketchy”). To make matters worse, Sketchy just filed a contract claim against Hapless to enforce that contract, and Sketchy’s complaint seeks massive damages that could put Hapless out of business permanently. An interview with Hapless confirms the truth of the essential allegations of the complaint.

Sometimes a dissipation-of-assets claim under the IMDMA isn't enough when a recalcitrant spouse hedes assets. Never fear - the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act may be the answer.

このニュースレターは、2022年4月のインドの破産法の発展に関する重要な最新情報をカバーしています。