Case Name and Number: Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357
Introduction: In an 8-0 opinion issued today, the Supreme Court held that a creditor’s passive retention of property properly seized from a debtor pre-bankruptcy does not violate the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).
Notwithstanding the moratorium for bankruptcy, the number of applications for bringing subsidiary liability in the course of bankruptcy proceedings is not decreasing in recent times. The courts extend and specify the range of persons against whom the creditors may successfully assert their claims.
List of persons is being enlarged
Two recent decisions of the Honourable Mr Justice Harris are helpful additions to the growing amount of case law in this jurisdiction dealing with cross-border insolvency issues and are worthy of examination.
Hong Kong Companies Court appoints provisional liquidators for the purpose of seeking recognition in Mainland for the first time
Today, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding whether a creditor’s post-petition refusal to turnover bankruptcy estate property that it repossessed or impounded prepetition violates the automatic stay. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the creditor and decided that it did not violate the automatic stay.
A bankruptcy court judge in Texas recently handed down a ruling that could change the landscape of small business Subchapter V chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. The ruling is one of only a few known cases in the nation in which removal of the debtor-in-possession (DIP) has been sought and granted in a Subchapter V bankruptcy case.
Selection of the main judgments on restructuring and insolvency matters.
Silent administrator role allowed in pre-pack sale of business unit
Decision by Barcelona Commercial Court No 7 on October 30, 2020
This article is produced by CMS Holborn Asia, a Formal Law Alliance between CMS Singapore and Holborn Law LLC.
A. Overview
In Denka Advantech Pte Ltd v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 119, the Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”) had the opportunity to consider the applicable law with regard to penalty and liquidated damages (“LD”) clauses.