In a 2021 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived nearly 100 lawsuits seeking to recover fraudulent transfers made as part of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In one of the latest chapters in that resurrected litigation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held in Picard v. ABN AMRO Bank NV (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC), 654 B.R. 224 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
第１ はじめに
破産法６７条は、破産債権者が、破産手続開始時点で破産 者に債務を負担している場合の相殺を、原則、認めています。 相殺の担保的機能に対する期待を保護するためといわれま す。
他方、破産手続の基本原則である債権者平等を損う相殺 は禁じられています。たとえば破産法７１条１項２号は、「支払 不能になった後に契約によって負担する債務を専ら破産債権 をもってする相殺に供する目的で破産者の財産の処分を内 容とする契約を破産者との間で…締結することにより破産者 に対して債務を負担した場合であって、当該契約の締結の当 時、支払不能であったことを知っていたとき」は、相殺できない と定めています。これは、破産者と破産債権者との新たな取引 等で破産債権者に債務が発生すると、破産者が債権取得の 対価を代物弁済に供したのと同視できる場合があるため、支 払不能後の代物弁済が偏頗行為否認の対象となることとの 均衡を図るものといわれます。
One year ago, we wrote that 2022 would be remembered in the corporate bankruptcy world for the "crypto winter" that descended in November 2022 with the spectacular collapse of FTX Trading Ltd., Alameda Research, and approximately 130 other affiliated companies that ignited the meltdown of many other platforms, exchanges, lenders, and mining operations because they did business with FTX.
Because bankruptcy courts were created by Congress rather than under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, there is a disagreement over whether bankruptcy courts, like other federal courts, have "inherent authority" to impose sanctions for civil contempt on parties that refuse to comply with their orders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revisited this debate in In re Markus, 78 F.4th 554 (2nd Cir. 2023).
In the February 2024 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.
In the February 2024 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.
Shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies ("GmbH") often stipulate the right to purchase the shares of co-shareholders in certain events. These "share purchase rights" (Aufgriffsrechte) entitle the remaining shareholders to acquire the share of a shareholder when a contractually defined event (Aufgriffsfälle), like insolvency or the death of a shareholder, occurs. Often these rights are laid down in articles of association or a separate shareholders' agreement (Syndikatsvertrag). They are generally qualified as option rights.
On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down its much anticipated judgment[1] on the appeal of the Adler restructuring plan pursuant to Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (“RP”), which was sanctioned by the High Court on 12 April 2023
On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's sanction of Adler Group's (Adler) restructuring plan (the Plan) (see our alert). This much anticipated judgment provides clarity on the court's discretion to sanction a plan where there are dissenting classes of creditors.
Background
The Plan envisaged:
Why is Subsidiary Legislation 386.24 Companies Act (Suspension of Filing for Dissolution and Winding Up) Regulations (the “Regulations”) still in force?
Almost four years down the line, practitioners cannot help but question exactly why the Regulations are still in force now that most (if not all) pandemic measures have been totally lifted.
A helpful analysis of statute of limitations issues for fraudulent transfer claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee under § 544(a)&(b) is provided in a recent Circuit opinion.
- The opinion is Lewis v. Takacs (In re Stone Pine Investment Banking, LLC), Case No. 21-1423, U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (decided 12/19/2023).
Overview