After last year’s significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework, the Government has demonstrated a further commitment to simplifying and streamlining insolvency law to allow viable businesses that encounter economic challenges to restructure and continue trading.
This commitment is demonstrated by the Government continuing to examine ways to improve Australia's insolvency laws, including consulting on options to:
In the recent decision ofBadenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64,the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia abolished the use of the peak indebtedness rule in A
Hot on the heels of a trio of decisions concerning offshore provisional liquidation, which opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime (see https://dvc.hk/en/news/cases-detail/heralding-a-new-and-healthy-era-of-cross-border-insolvency-recognition-in-hong-kong-re-fdg-electric-vehicles-ltd-re-
On April 19, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from the Second Circuit’s decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation (“Tribune II”),[1] leaving intact the Second Circuit’s decision upholding the safe harbor defense to avoidance actions und
In a guaranty, the guarantor assumes an obligation in favor of a creditor to pay in the place of the principal in the event of default (conditional, secondary obligation). A guaranty is a separate contract from the contract by which the principal assumed the obligation in favor of the creditor, though dependent and accessorial to it.
Outside a bankruptcy event, the guarantor has the same defenses as the principal against the creditor. In case of payment to the creditor, the guarantor has the right to repeat against the principal.
事業再生・債権管理Newsletter 2021年5月号 2 本ニュースレターの発行元は弁護士法人大江橋法律事務所です。弁護士法人大江橋法律事務所は、1981年に設立された日本の総合法律事務所です。東京、大阪、名古屋、海外は上海にオフィスを構えており、主に企業法務 を中心とした法的サービスを提供しております。本ニュースレターの内容は、一般的な情報提供に止まるものであり、個別具体的なケースに関する法的アドバイスを想定したものではありません。本ニュースレターの内容につきま しては、一切の責任を負わないものとさせて頂きます。法律・裁判例に関する情報及びその対応等については本ニュースレターのみに依拠されるべきでなく、必要に応じて別途弁護士のアドバイスをお受け頂ければと存じます。 所有権留保の落とし穴 ～最判平成２１年３月１０日を振り返る～ 第１ はじめに 次の事案において、Ｙ社は、Ｘ社に対する債権の回収のた めに所有権留保を設定していたにもかかわらず、Ｘ社の経営 危機が迫っているときに、なぜかあえて折角の所有権留保を 放棄してしまいました。なぜＹ社はわざわざ権利を放棄した のでしょうか。 今回は、所有権留保の落とし穴を紹介したいと思います。 ① Ｘ社は動産（以下「本件動産」）を所有し、これを事業 に用いている。
In its recent decision in Atlas (Brampton) Limited Partnership v. Canada Grace Park Ltd., 2021 ONCA 221, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) clarified the requirements for foreclosure on investment property under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the PPSA).
In Hong Kong, the Official Receiver, a provisional liquidator, liquidator or any creditor may apply for a regulating order any time after the presentation of a winding-up petition. Because the court has the power to dispense with various winding-up procedures on making a regulating order (for example, the calling of the first meeting of creditors and contributories), this has sometimes been viewed as a way to facilitate a more streamlined liquidation process.
Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.
Background