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).
On March 31, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada awarded attorney’s fees to a debtor under a Nevada fee-shifting statute for objecting to a time-barred proof of claim.1 The opinion serves as a warning that filing a proof of claim for time-barred debt may carry consequences other than claim disallowance despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Midland Fu
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that priorities amongst the secured creditors (first charge or second charge) will not prevail in distribution of assets in liquidation, in a case where the creditors had elected for relinquishment of security interest and for distribution of assets according to Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Introduction
On 3 May 2021, the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer of Australia announced that, as part of Australia’s economic recovery plan, the Government would be reviewing further aspects of the insolvency laws including to “consult on improving schemes of arrangement processes to better support businesses, including by introducing a moratorium on creditor enforcement whilst schemes are being negotiated.”
The question whether the institution or continuation of a proceeding under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act can be said to be covered by the moratorium provision, namely, Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been a crucial issue in the legal domain. Various High courts have had dissenting opinion in relation to this concerning matter. However the Apex court has now put an end to all doubts and confusions.
Creditors, such as private residential landlords, are being warned about an urgent change to the arrears process, which has been brought about by the government’s Breathing Space initiative.
Breathing Space, or the Debt Respite Scheme, was launched on 4 May 2021 to give people in debt up to 60 days’ legal protection from creditors.
Law of Limitation prescribes the time limit for different types of suits for which an aggrieved person can approach the court for redressal. For Insolvency applications, the limitation period is 3 years.
The automatic stay provided under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is an injunction, arising when a bankruptcy case is filed, which prevents all proceedings or actions against the debtor or the property of the estate without court permission - the so-called “lifting of the stay”.[1]