Is the § 363(m) limit on appeal of a sale order “subject to waiver”?
That’s the essential question before the U.S. Supreme Court in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, Case No. 21-1270 (certiorari granted June 27, 2022).
A deep circuit split exists on whether the § 363(m) limitation is, (i) on an appellate court’s jurisdiction, or (ii) on remedies an appellate court can provide.[Fn. 1]
The company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is an insolvency process that has raised significant concern amongst commercial property owners in recent years about their use by tenant companies to change lease terms, write off arrears and recalculate future rental liabilities. Some property owners feel that they have been unfairly targeted by CVAs, particularly in the retail and casual dining sectors, to the benefit of other creditors.
Experts and non-experts alike predicted a wave of bankruptcies and insolvencies following the business disruption caused by Covid-19 in 2021. However, new filings globally were much lower than expected following historic levels of government support and easy access to cheap liquidity in the capital markets. Despite this, we expect new commercial filings to pick back up as government support around the world abates.
Bankruptcies and insolvencies will rebound in 2022
US
The deepening crisis of debtor honesty means that today, more than ever, creditors face the risk that debtors will not only fail to pay their debts voluntarily, but will hinder enforcement by transferring assets to third parties. In such situations, a fraudulent transfer claim against the third party (sometimes called a “Pauline action”), known and applied in legal systems of many countries around the world, comes to the creditor’s rescue.
Fraudulent transfer claim against a third party: how it works
简介
最近在Re Hong Kong Bai Yuan International Business Co., Ltd [2022] HKCFI 960一案中，原讼法庭（「法院」）命令被告人（「该公司」）向呈请人（「呈请人」）偿还一项受仲裁协议涵盖的债务，否则将被颁令清盘。法院澄清，虽然法院在行使酌情权时会给予仲裁协议相当大的比重，但不一定将事情转交仲裁处理。
背景
呈请人于2021年6月10日提出呈请（「该呈请」），要求法院对该公司发出清盘令，理由是该公司未能遵守关于一项955,000欧元债务（「该债务」）的法定要求偿债书，因此根据香港法例第32章《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（「该条例」）第178条被视为无力偿债。
Diego Sierra is a dispute resolution expert who is praised for his profound ability “to understand the key points of a complex case”.
Questions & Answers
In a recent article, we analysed the Court’s powers to summon a person for examination under sections 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Those powers may be used by an eligible applicant to gather information from an officer, provisional liquidator or other person about the examinable affairs of an externally-administered corporation.
Overview
Recently, in Shady Bird Lending, LLC v. The Source Hotel, LLC (In re The Source Hotel, LLC), Case No. 8:21-cv-00824-FLA (C.D. Ca. June 8, 2022), the Central District of California District Court adopted the majority view that a non-income producing property could be a “single asset real estate,” or SARE, debtor. The district court held that a hotel, which was not yet producing income, met the definition of a SARE.
Background
Changtel Solutions UK Ltd (In Liquidation) and others v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd [2022] EWHC 694 (Ch)1
Section 127(1) Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) provides that: "In a winding-up by the court, any disposition of the company’s property, and any transfer of shares, or alteration in the status of the company’s members, made after the commencement of the winding-up is, unless the court otherwise orders, void."
Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: A liability in respect of a claim arising out of a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" under the IBC and a holder of such recovery certificate would be a "financial creditor" under the IBC. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated May 30, 2022, in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna and Another [Civil Appeal No.