Benefit Of Creditors Research Articles

Insolvency within your trust: bankrupt settlors, insolvent companies and insolvent trusts

Abstract Anecdotally at least, there seems to be a trend towards increased litigation involving insolvency practitioners pitted against trustees. This article considers the so-called ‘insolvent trust’ and the challenges these present to their trustees, with particular reference to the Z Trust litigation. It goes on to discuss certain claims that may be faced by insolvent settlors and companies involving the adjustment of antecedent transactions for the benefit of creditors, and how trustees can protect themselves in the face of such claims.

Insolvency Issue in Corporate Law: A Reference of Nepal

Insolvency is the important issue of contemporary business world which can be used both in personal sense and corporate sense. However, personal insolvency is little practiced across the globe despite the origin of insolvency from it whereas corporate insolvency is the basic part of contemporary corporate law. So, insolvency law makes global business order possible because the distress company or legal person are liquidated and dissolved by using same techniques, which prevents the company from further deterioration. There can be much effort to rescue company through receivership and examination-ship. Otherwise, insolvency of company through liquidation; both voluntary and compulsory is the final resort. Moreover, bankruptcy is generally used for personal economic distress and insolvency is used for corporate economic and financial distress. Both, restructuring and dissolution are the two part of the insolvency process. So, this paper tries to analyze the insolvency issues in relation with Nepalese insolvency law. Conversely, prevailing insolvency law of Nepal doesn’t deal with foreign aspect of insolvency. It brings challenges because contemporary business and corporate worlds are cross-national and transnational in nature. Thus, insolvency is the result and answer of corporate failure caused by any incidences. It has different point of view i.e. benefit of creditors, business contract, communitarian, economic, accountability, curative, moral and enforcement etc.

Rubin and New Cap: Foreign Judgments and Insolvency

The decisions of the UK Supreme Court in 2012 in Rubin and New Cap, and of the Singapore High Court in 2013 in Beluga Chartering, raise in acute form the question of how far the common law of international insolvency and of the recognition of foreign judgments can go when a local court is asked by a court in another country to render particular forms of assistance in relation to an insolvency administration which is taking place there. It asks how the instinct to give assistance for the ultimate benefit of creditors needs to be balanced by the caution which a local court naturally shows when asked to take a foreign court's word that the facts and matters are as it has determined them to be. It also prompts the question whether the common law of England, now overlaid with substantial legislative provision for assisting foreign insolvencies, might have departed from the common law of countries, like Singapore, where the intervention of the legislature has been rather less. The lecture, given at SMU on 10th April 2013, looks at, and hopes to prompt others to look at, some of the issues which arise.Based on a lecture given at Singapore Management University, (10 April 2013).

Asset protection trusts: a legal and economic analysis of competing regulatory frameworks

Asset protection trusts (APTs) are trusts that are designed to shield the settlor's assets from the claims of creditors. Normally, settlors look to take advantage of the legislative framework of APTs offshore (ie non-UK) since they provide a greater degree of asset protection than that available onshore (ie UK). This article provides both a comparative legal analysis of the legislative frameworks concerning APTs onshore versus offshore and an economic analysis, applying the Tiebout model (1956) on the optimal provision of local public goods to the same legislative frameworks. In order to understand the differences in legislative approach between the group of offshore countries and the UK, we have introduced by way of illustration a hypothetical case of an APT registered offshore where the creditors are looking to reach the assets of the settlor. We have used the laws of thirteen offshore jurisdictions – Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Dominica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Turks and Caicos Islands and Jersey – as a baseline for comparison to the laws applicable within England and Wales. For purposes of this article, we have used a version of the Tiebout model for regulatory economic analysis. The point being that the most efficient regulatory regimes will be those that not only secure the most assets but also be ones where individual preferences are most likely to be maximally satisfied. Our argument in this article is based on a Tiebout model which requires three conditions to be satisfied: (i) perfect information; (ii) no externalities; and (iii) perfect mobility of actors. It is evident that offshore legislation in relation to APTs fails to satisfy one of the conditions, namely the absence of cross-border externalities, since the interests of onshore creditors are not reflected in such legislation. Our model suggests that because of unavoidable externalities, competition among offshore jurisdictions for non-resident settlors does not generate efficient laws and it also may imply that such competition can lead to a “race to the bottom”. However, the problem of cross-border externalities may be mitigated by designing conflict-of-law rules such that interested parties, including the settlors and creditors, are aware of the risks undertaken ex ante. An examination of English conflict-of-law rules in relation to potential challenges of APTs reveals that, at least in bankruptcy situations, English law is likely to be applied, and thus, from a practical perspective, cross-border externalities are likely to be mitigated. That is, if the settlors know that English law is to be applied to APT challenges, they are less likely to engage in risky behaviour. Thus, the interests of onshore settlors will be by default reflected in the settlors' decision-making, mitigating the risk of cross-border externalities. One of the general results of our study is that whilst many jurisdictions claim regulatory arbitrage opportunities for settlor's assets, not all jurisdictions can have optimal efficiency in regulatory competition. Our analysis of the APT rules of thirteen offshore jurisdictions and England leads to the conclusion that maximal efficiency is gained by using English law for the benefit of creditors and that regulatory arbitrage opportunities are illusory.

Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors

David Kupetz discusses the assignment for the benefit of creditors as an ideal solution for companies, when they are no longer viable and must proceed with an exit strategy. After outlining the options for companies in this circumstance, he defines the ABC process, from beginning to end, and highlights its fast and easy approach when compared to other processes, such as bankruptcy liquidation. Kupetz recommends an ABC as a solution for companies that want to wind down quickly and efficiently, but are burdened with debt and want to limit negative publicity and potential liability, etc.

Creditors' Remedies: Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: Validity of Common-Law Preferential Assignment of Realty

Creditors' Remedies: Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: Validity of Common-Law Preferential Assignment of Realty

Creditors' Remedies: Assignment for Benefit of Creditors: Priorities

Creditors' Remedies: Assignment for Benefit of Creditors: Priorities

Discharge by Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors

Discharge by Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors

Corporations: Promoters' Liability for Benefit of Creditors for Inequitable Profits Taken in Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Corporations: Promoters' Liability for Benefit of Creditors for Inequitable Profits Taken in Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Assignment for Benefit of Creditors. Bankruptcy. Priority of Debts Due United States. Landlord's Lien for Rent

Assignment for Benefit of Creditors. Bankruptcy. Priority of Debts Due United States. Landlord's Lien for Rent

Assignment for Benefit of Creditors. Chattel Mortgage. Rights of General Assignee against Unrecorded Chattel Mortgage

Assignment for Benefit of Creditors. Chattel Mortgage. Rights of General Assignee against Unrecorded Chattel Mortgage

Partial Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

Partial Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

Statutory Regulation of Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

Statutory Regulation of Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

A Classification of State Statutes Regulating General Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

A Classification of State Statutes Regulating General Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

Effect of National Bankruptcy Act upon Assignments for Benefit of Creditors

Effect of National Bankruptcy Act upon Assignments for Benefit of Creditors

Assignments for Benefit of Creditors as an Act of Bankruptcy

Assignments for Benefit of Creditors as an Act of Bankruptcy

Discharge of Debtor by Assignment for Benefit of Creditors

Discharge of Debtor by Assignment for Benefit of Creditors

Insurance. Assignee for Benefit of Creditors as Sole and Unconditional Owner under Policy

Insurance. Assignee for Benefit of Creditors as Sole and Unconditional Owner under Policy

Trade Regulation. Solicitation of Customers by Assignor for the Benefit of Creditors

Trade Regulation. Solicitation of Customers by Assignor for the Benefit of Creditors

Validity of Assignment for Benefit of Creditors under Virginia Bulk Sales Act

Validity of Assignment for Benefit of Creditors under Virginia Bulk Sales Act