Avoidance action is an umbrella term for adversary proceedings that seek to unwind or avoid transactions that occurred before an insolvency filing. These actions are also referred to as “claw-back claims” because, by undoing a transaction, an asset or value is being clawed back into the insolvency estate.

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.

Un Juzgado de lo Mercantil aprueba, por primera vez, la modificación de un convenio concursal al amparo de la normativa de medidas procesales y organizativas para hacer frente al COVID-19 en el ámbito de la administración de justicia.

El Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº10 de Barcelona, del pasado 29 de julio, ha permitido el nombramiento de un administrador antes del concurso para facilitar la venta de la unidad productiva antes de la declaración de concurso. Con ello, se ha permitido una medida equivalente al “pre-pack” anglosajón, favoreciendo una liquidación más eficiente y evitando incrementar el pasivo de la concursada.

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

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

El Tribunal Supremo, aun admitiendo la vertiente resarcitoria de la cláusula penal, rechaza que tenga eficacia sancionadora para el deudor en concurso. En consecuencia, se sostiene que el interés del concurso sirva como factor de moderación de las cláusulas penales.

La sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo número 145/2019, de 8 de marzo (Ponente Excmo. Sr. don Francisco Javier Orduña Moreno) se pronuncia sobre los efectos de la cláusula penal sobre una concursada tras la resolución de un contrato.

In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York recently analyzed whether a debtor may exempt from her bankruptcy estate a retirement account that was bequeathed to her upon the death of her parent. In In re Todd, 585 B.R. 297 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y 2018), the court addressed an objection to a debtor’s claim of exemption in an inherited retirement account, and held that the property was not exempt under New York and federal law.