Does a rotten tree produce good fruit?

That’s the bankruptcy issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, where the Question is this:

“Whether the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act violates the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause by increasing quarterly fees solely in U.S. Trustee districts.”

Note:

The Bankruptcy Protector

Imagine this: you sell a product to a company on credit at 8% interest until you are paid, and the company files for bankruptcy before repayment. Or maybe you are a hard money lender that made an unsecured loan at 18% to a company to bridge through hard times, and the company files for bankruptcy. Or maybe you are a secured creditor with a 5% loan on real estate, and after the borrower files for bankruptcy, you discover there is a defect in your mortgage and your lien can be stripped.

The Fifth Circuit recently dismissed an appeal of a confirmation order as equitably moot. The decision was based on three key factors: the appellant hadn’t obtained a stay pending appeal, the plan had been substantially consummated, and practical relief couldn’t be fashioned if the plan was unwound.Talarico v. Ultra Petro. Corp. (In re Ultra Petro. Corp.), Case No. 21-20049, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8941 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022).

In its recent decision in Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3 (Walton), the High Court of Australia held, in a split decision, that the mandatory public examination power contained in section 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) could be used by eligible applicants to examine directors and other officers of a company in external administration, including senior management, external administrators and trustees, about the company’s affairs for the broad purposes of enforcing and promoting comp

The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background

Where the key asset of a technology start up is a potential entitlement to an R&D tax refund, the Spitfire decision provides important clarity for financiers of such businesses, as well as for liquidators (and employees) of those businesses which fail.  

Insolvency practitioners will welcome the confirmation that they cannot be expected to be aware of same degree of information as if company was still trading

１ はじめに

（１） 本稿の目的

会社法は、債権者に、一定の条件のもと、債務者会社の株 主名簿（会社法125条2項3項、以下注記なき条文は会社 法）、取締役会議事録（371条4項）、株主総会議事録（318条 4項）、計算書類等（442条3項）の閲覧を請求できる権利を認 めている。もっとも、債権管理あるいは事業再生の文脈で、会 社法で認められたこれらの権利が活用されることは、筆者が 知る限り、あまり多くないのではないかと思われる。

本稿では、債権管理の局面において、情報不足になりがち な債権者に与えられたツールとして、会社法上の情報開示 請求権を有効活用しうる場面があり得るのではないか、との 指摘をすることを試みたい。

（２） 考察の背景

会社法が上記の各請求権を認めたのは、債務者の業務や 財産に関する一定の調査を行うことを可能として、債権者が 実効的な権利行使をできるよう配慮した趣旨と解される。債 権管理・事業再生の場面は、まさに債権者の実効的な権利 行使が問題となる局面といえる。にもかかわらず、この請求権 が参照される機会が少ないのはなぜか。

We were approached by a company to assist with its restructuring. Our client’s biggest problem was that its largest unsecured creditor was also its main supplier. Approximately 80% of the client’s business depended on the products supplied by this supplier. This would not be a problem if the client and the supplier had an ongoing agreement to continue to supply, but there was no such agreement. The supplier could cut our client off at any time and had no legal obligation to continue to accept our client’s business.

On 21 April 2022, the federal Chamber of Representatives adopted the Private Members’ Bill inserting Book 1 on “General provisions” of the Civil Code (Wetsvoorstel houdende Boek 1 “Algemene bepalingen” van het Burgerlijk Wetboek / Proposition de loi portant le Livre 1er “Dispositions générales” du Code civil – the Book on General Provisions) and that inserting Book 5 “Obligations” of the Civil Code (Wetsvoorstel houndende Boek 5 “Verbintenissen” van het Burgerlijk Wetboek / Proposition de loi portant le Livre 5 “Les obligations” du Code civil – the Book on Obligations) (for a summary of bot