The opinion is Samson v. The LCF Group, Inc. (In re Bridger Steele, Inc.), Adv. No. 2:24-ap-2003 in the Montana Bankruptcy Court (decided September 30, 2024; Doc. 10).
Background
Debtor is a fabricator and seller of metal roofing and siding products.
Introduction
On November 07, 2024, the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) in its judgment in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.,[1] directed the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet”), bringing an end to the five-year long saga of efforts to revive the beleaguered airline.
On November 7, 2024, a 3 (three) judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) delivered their judgment in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.1,inter alia, ordering liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet Airways”).
It is not uncommon for contractors, in several industry sectors, to contract with a special purpose vehicle (SPV), whose day-to-day management is effectively controlled by a parent company, and the SPV has with little to no assets beyond cash flow provided by its parent. In this article we look at what a claimant could do outside of the traditional insolvency process in circumstances where the SPV goes into a form of external administration such as administration or liquidation and there are no assets available to the external administrators.
報載曾為全球第二大的加密貨幣交易所FTX於2022年11月聲請美國破產法第11章破產重組，其破產重組計畫終於在2024年10月獲得美國德拉瓦州破產法院法官核准。受益於加密貨幣價值的大幅提升及美國國稅局同意減少稅捐債權之數額，FTX的用戶可獲得以破產當時加密貨幣的美元計價之賠償，若以此計算，大部分的用戶均可取回全額賠償及部分利息。
雖然仍有用戶認為加密貨幣現在之價值遠高於FTX破產時的價值，若無法返還用戶原本持有之加密貨幣，根本不算是全額賠償。但無論如何，在破產程序中債權人能獲得全額賠償及部分利息，是相當少見的狀況。
■美為讓債務人重獲新生，對稅捐債權保障可有所退讓
This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision where the Federal Court considered when a proof of debt would be ‘admitted’ within the meaning of section 563B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and therefore attract the statutory entitlement to interest.
Key takeaways
In Harrington v Purdue Pharma,1 the United States Supreme Court held that so-called “non-consensual third-party releases” were not permitted in restructuring plans proposed under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. A “third-party release” arises where creditors are asked to vote on a restructuring plan or scheme which not only proposes to release the debtor company (i.e. the company that has petitioned for bankruptcy or is proposing the scheme) from all liability but to also release other third parties from any associated liability.
Introduction
Section 216 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a person who has been a director of a company at any time in the 12 months before it goes into insolvent liquidation is prohibited for five years from being a director of, or directly or indirectly being concerned in or taking part in, the promotion, formation or management of a company with the same or similar name to the liquidated company (a “prohibited name”). Section 217 imposes personal liability on a director for debts incurred by a company which acts in breach of s 216.
The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) has been around for centuries.
ABC is a business debtor’s voluntary liquidation tool—typically utilized in cooperation with a major secured creditor.
Historically, ABCs are attractive to debtors and creditors alike as an efficient, mostly out-of-court tool for maximizing the liquidation value of a business—for the benefit of creditors.