The new federal decree-law no. 35 of 2021 amending the provisions of federal decree-law no. 9 of 2016 regarding bankruptcy and its amendments has been introduced in the United Arab Emirates (hereinafter referred to as the 'new Decree') to be in effect from 1st November 2021. The new decree brings in a fundamental and crucial change in the position of law that now accords individual liability on the shareholders of the company (subject to further conditions), in the instance the company funds are insufficient to cover even twenty per cent of the company's liabilities.
For a company with robust data protection and recovery practices, a ransomware attack may cause a few extra headaches, but it won’t wipe the company out. Companies without those protections in place, however, risk allowing ransomware to bankrupt their entire enterprise.
Creditors of English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) have appointed a licensed insolvency practitioner to act as his Trustee in Bankruptcy to investigate any claims against him and seek to recover any hidden assets.
Robinson applied for bankruptcy shortly after his divorce in February 2021, and while libel proceedings were ongoing against him. A bankruptcy order was made on 3 March 2021. In July 2021, Robinson was ordered to pay £100,000 in damages, together with legal costs, on top of his bankruptcy debts, which are estimated at £2m.
In what is believed to be the first reported decision on this issue, the High Court has allowed an appeal under section 205(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) against a decision of the Secretary of State to defer the dissolution of a company in liquidation.
A link to the judgement can be found here.
The facts
“We can’t see what the Subchapter V trustees are doing, so we don’t have an opinion on their effectiveness.”
–This is the response of a couple bankruptcy judges, when asked about the effectiveness of Subchapter V trustees in performing the statutory “facilitate a consensual plan” duty.
Startled!
Startled! That’s my initial reaction, upon hearing the judges’ response.
But the response actually makes sense:
Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: In the event of unsuccessful conciliation, arbitration proceedings must mandatorily be resorted to. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated December 15, 2021 (“Judgement”), in the matter of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. The State of Rajasthan and Others [Civil Appeal No.
On 14 January 2022, it was published in the Official Journal of the Spanish Parliament, the draft law of the Insolvency Act for the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, debt waivers and disqualifications, and on measures to improve the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and debt waiver procedures, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Restructuring and Insolvency Directive) (hereinafter, the "Draft Law").
Analizamos las principales novedades introducidas en el Proyecto de Ley de reforma del texto refundido de la Ley Concursal, recientemente publicado en el Boletín de las Cortes. Ofrecemos, además, un documento comparativo en el que mostramos todos los cambios que incorpora el texto respecto del anteproyecto inicial publicado el pasado mes de agosto.
On October 31, 2021, PWM Property Management LLC and eight of its affiliates (collectively, “PWM” or the “Debtors”) filed chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.[1] The Debtors hold direct or indirect interests in two real properties—245 Park Avenue in New York City (“245 Park”) and 181 West Madison Street in Chicago (the “Chicago Property”). S.L.
The practice of granting third party releases in bankruptcy was recently dealt another blow by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In Patterson et. al. v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc., Civil No. 3:21cv167 (DJN), the District Court found that the lower bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to both rule on certain of the claims covered by the third-party releases at issue and, it follows, to confirm the debtors’ plan of reorganization.