On March 17, 2022, New York-based Buyk Corp., a mobile app grocery delivery service operating in New York and Chicago, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 22-10328).

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of In the matter of PIC Lindfield 19 Pty Ltd (in liq)[2022] NSWSC 271, in which former directors of the company in liquidation failed to set aside summonses for public examination on the basis of alleged non-disclosure by the liquidators.

Key Takeaways

This article first appeared in FIRE magazine.

Introduction

The High Court today gave the first decision, globally, of a Court of ultimate appeal on the question of the construction of Article XI(2) of the Cape Town Convention's protocol on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (Aircraft Protocol), which is of seminal importance for financiers and lessors of aircraft property, insolvency administrators globally.

The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Picard v. Citibank, in which the petitioner sought review of a Second Circuit decision on a seemingly obscure point of law: the pleading burden for “good faith” under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Second Circuit’s decision is part of, and highlights, a larger, systemic problem in the evolution of bankruptcy law over the last decade—the multiplication of trustee-friendly interpretations of the Bankruptcy Code that, when combined, leave innocent subsequent transferees unfairly vulnerable to meritless clawback suits.

O Exit Finance ou, em português, Financiamento para Saída, consiste no financiamento concedido a uma empresa em recuperação judicial ou extrajudicial que permite à mesma pagar os seus credores – tanto os concursais quanto uma parte ou todos os extraconcursais – e com isso encerrar a sua recuperação, voltando a atuar no mercado sem a mancha da insolvência. Uma de suas principais características é que, ao adotá-lo, a empresa recuperada apresente índices financeiros compatíveis com os de suas melhores concorrentes.

This briefing note focuses on the solvent liquidation of non-regulated BVI companies.

The voluntary liquidation of a solvent BVI company is regulated by the BVI Business Companies Act, as amended (BCA). The BCA applies to all companies that have been incorporated, re-registered (whether voluntarily or automatically) or continued as BVI companies under the BCA.

On March 14, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) revisited the issue of the rejection of filed-rate contracts in bankruptcy where such contracts are governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). The ruling marks the first time the Fifth Circuit has addressed this issue since its 2004 decision in In re Mirant Corp.¹ In Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v.

The situation, which is already unpleasant in itself for a shareholder of a bankrupt company, becomes really annoying in many cases due to the insolvency administrator's right to challenge insolvency under sections 129 et spp. InsO, the situation becomes really annoying in many cases. It is particularly annoying if the shareholder has provided security for the claim of a company creditor for the repayment of a loan and is claimed by the insolvency administrator under sections 143 (3) and 135 InsO (shareholder loan) despite the fact that the company has already repaid the loan.

This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will explain the concepts of the bankruptcy “estate” and “property of the estate” and the importance thereof.