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.

Introduction

L’arbitrage est un mode consensuel de résolution des différends qui permet aux parties de personnaliser leur processus et même de choisir leur propre décideur. L’insolvabilité est le scénario diamétralement opposé, dans lequel les différends concernant le débiteur sont involontairement regroupés devant un seul tribunal d’insolvabilité.

Arbitration is a consensual method of dispute resolution in which the parties can customize their process and even select their own decision-maker. Insolvency is the diametrically opposite scenario, where disputes involving the debtor are involuntarily consolidated before a single insolvency court.

The appellate courts have been busy explaining or clarifying preference and fraudulent transfer law. Although novices may think the Bankruptcy Code (Code) is clear on its face, imaginative counsel have found gaps in the statute and generated rafts of litigation since the Code's enactment in 1979. Recent appellate decisions, summarized below, show that courts are still making new law or refining prior case law.

Preferences

第１ はじめに

経済的に困窮した取引先から債権（本稿では担保のない 一般債権であることを前提に論述します。）を回収し、その後 に取引先が破産に至った場合、その債権回収行為が破産管 財人から否認され、回収金を破産管財人に返還しなければ ならないことがあります。

この否認（講学上偏頗行為否認と称されます。）について破 産法は、次のような定めを置いています（下線は筆者）。

（特定の債権者に対する担保の供与等の否認）

第１６２条 次に掲げる行為（既存の債務についてされた担保 の供与又は債務の消滅に関する行為に限る。）は、破産手続 開始後、破産財団のために否認することができる。

一 破産者が支払不能になった後又は破産手続開始の申立 てがあった後にした行為。ただし、債権者が、その行為の当 時、次のイ又はロに掲げる区分に応じ、それぞれ当該イ又はロ に定める事実を知っていた場合に限る。

イ 当該行為が支払不能になった後にされたものである場合 支払不能であったこと又は支払の停止があったこと。

ロ 当該行為が破産手続開始の申立てがあった後にされたも のである場合 破産手続開始の申立てがあったこと。

On August 15, 2022, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates its prior In re Hammons opinion, which deals with remedies for unconstitutionally lower quarterly fees charged to bankruptcy debtors in Alabama and North Carolina.[Fn. 1]

Opinion Points

Check out these points from the Hammons opinion: