On October 31, 2021, PWM Property Management LLC, along with several affiliates that own premium commercial space in New York and Chicago, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 21-11445). The company reports $1 to 10 billion in assets and liabilities.
A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.
Maryland Legal Alert for Financial Services
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland recently proposed a new local rule in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that mere retention of bankruptcy estate property by a creditor post-petition does not amount to an exercise of control over estate property in violation of the automatic stay.
Maryland Legal Alert for Financial Services
The High Court, in its recent judgment In the matter of ipagoo LLP (in administration) [2021] EWHC 2163 (Ch) (Ipagoo), has determined that no statutory trust exists over safeguarded funds held under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMRs). This can be contrasted with the decision In Re Supercapital [2020] EWHC 1685 (Ch) (Supercapital) which found that the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs) create a statutory trust over safeguarded funds.
Preface
Welcome to the Americas Restructuring Review 2020, one of Global Restructuring Review’s annual, yearbook-style reports.
Global Restructuring Review, for anyone unfamiliar, is the online home for international restructuring specialists everywhere, telling them all they need to know about everything that matters.
On October 26, 2021, Grupo Posadas S.A.B. de C.V., a Mexico City-based hospitality company, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Lead Case No. 21-11831). Grupo Posadas owns, leases, operates, and manages resorts, hotels, and villas in urban and coastal areas of Mexico under several owned brands.
On October 19, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a defendant’s motion for judgment without prejudice concerning allegations that it knowingly ignored cease-and-desist letters sent by an individual while the individual had a pending bankruptcy petition.
2016年破産倒産法は、目的やプロセスの異なる様々な法律が乱立していた従前と比較して、財務的困難な状況に陥った企業を救済する上で重要な役割を果たしています。破産倒産法の初期の成功要因は種々ありますが、インドの立法府が同法を適切に解釈し、適時に改正してきたことが主な要因として挙げられます。一定の成果を上げている破産倒産法ですが、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）および会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）の機能およびプロセスの合理化には、未だ改善の余地があります。
本記事では、一見すると合理的に見える外部要因を考慮することで、債務不履行に陥った企業債務者が、法に基づく倒産処理手続に異議を唱えることができる根拠を意図せず広げてしまった可能性のある、Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd v. Union Bank of India & Ors.事件におけるNCLATの判決について考察しています。
Facts of the case
On October 12, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition for a writ of certiorari in a case challenging the doctrine of equitable mootness. Equitable mootness has been described as a “narrow doctrine by which an appellate court deems it prudent for practical reasons to forbear deciding an appeal when to grant the relief requested will undermine the finality and reliability of consummated plans of reorganization.”1 By his petition, David Hargreaves—an unsecured noteholder of debtor Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc.