L’un des principaux avantages pour un débiteur de se placer sous la protection de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (« LACC ») ou de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (« LFI ») consiste en la suspension des procédures pouvant être intentées par un créancier faisant face à un défaut de paiement. Cette suspension des procédures permet notamment à la débitrice de se réorganiser ou de disposer de certains ou de l’ensemble de ses actifs sous la supervision du tribunal. Or, certaines exceptions existent.

※    本ニューズレターは、2024 年 8 月 19 日現在の情報に基づいています。

2024 年 8 月 9 日に、The Supreme Court of the Union（ミャンマーの最高裁判所）から、insolvency practitioner（「倒産実務家」）の登録フォーム及び費用に関する告示（Notification  No.998/2024、「本倒産告示」）が公布されました。また、同日、National Committee for Setting Minimum Wage（国家委員会）から、最低賃金の実質的な引き上げに関する告示（Notification No.1/2024、「本賃金告示」）が交付されましたので、その概要をお伝えします。

1. 倒産実務家の登録フォーム及び費用に関する告示

2020    年に施行された倒産法上、会社の清算手続は清算人により遂行される必要がありますが、かかる清算人は、倒産法に従って登録され、所定の資格を有する倒産実務家である必要があるとされていましたが、倒産実務家の具体的選任は進んでおりませんでした。

The High Court has directed the trustees in a UK bankruptcy case to treat certain Russian bank creditors as not being subject to UK sanctions, unless new evidence suggests otherwise.

It is essential that any UK individual or entity doing business, managing funds/other economic resources, or providing financing or professional services, keeps abreast of the current UK Russian sanctions regime, which is chiefly set out in the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the "Regulations"). The question of how the Regulations might apply to those with fiduciary duties – either as trustees or as directors – has been considered in two recent High Court cases.

After years of hard-fought litigation, most claimants are thrilled to obtain a final and enforceable judgment or arbitration award. However, more often than one thinks, this excitement is followed by the disappointing realization that the defendant has little interest in voluntarily satisfying the award.

The promulgation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) introduced the categorization of creditors as either “financial” or “operational”. The rights and powers of creditors as either financial or operational creditors though treated equally at the stage of initiation of proceedings under IBC, undergo a sea change once proceedings under IBC stands initiated.

A new, bipartisan bankruptcy bill in the U.S. Senate purports, according to an official document, to:

In an announcement to beneficiaries on 24 March 2024[1], the joint administrative receivers (JARs) of Sigma Finance Corporation (the Company), once thought to be “insolvency proof” 

When the COVID-19 Pandemic incepted, and issues arose as to whether affected policyholders could seek Business Income and Civil Authority coverage from the presence or suspected presence of SARS-CoV-2 and consequent orders of Civil Authority, I thought that the easiest question to answer was whether such policyholders had suffered physical loss or damage (“PLOD”) to their property.

The Majority PLOD Rule Prior to COVID-19

An appeals court has issued an insightful decision on the availability of damages when an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed in bad faith. See Stursberg v. Morrison Sund PLLC, No. 23-1186, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20286 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2024).

The decision addresses both the interplay between Bankruptcy Code sections 303 and 305 and federal preemption of state law.