The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

On 28 June 2021, Zacaroli J declined to sanction a restructuring plan (the “Plan”) in respect of Hurricane Energy PLC (the “Company”) under section 901F of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”). The Company is part of a group whose business is extracting oil stored within fractures in solid rock beneath the sea.

On Monday 14th September 2020, Mrs Justice Falk issued her reasoned judgment, in respect of the application by Codere Finance 2 (UK) Limited (the "Company") to convene a single class of its creditors to consider and vote on a proposed scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 ( the "Scheme").

In a hearing spanning three days, the High Court of England and Wales addressed multiple grounds of challenge from a dissenting noteholder but nonetheless granted the Company's request to convene a single meeting of its scheme creditors.

Background

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

On 3 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was debated by the Committee of the Whole House of Commons. This follows on from the first reading in the House of Commons on 20 May 2020. This is the bill which enacts many of the measures referenced in the government's announcements earlier this year.

On 20 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons. This is the bill that enacts many of the measures referenced in the government's announcements earlier this year.

On 20 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons.This is the bill that enacts many of the measures referenced in the government's announcements earlier this year.

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background