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.

The case in question is CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19. The decision was delivered on 5 March 2021 by the Singapore Court of Appeal.

The judgment addresses issues surrounding claims by a bank under assignments and other security documents over rights in and receivables under commodities supply contracts, and overturns the Singapore High Court decision in CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 117.

Summary

On 12 August 2020, we wrote about three important judicial decisions of the courts in England and Singapore relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements over claims arising under insolvency laws.

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).

The increasing number of high-profile bankruptcies across a number of commercial hubs has brought renewed focus on important questions of jurisdiction arising out of the tension between local insolvency regimes on the one hand, and parties’ arbitration agreements on the other.

Recent insolvencies remind us that, when a seller of goods is unpaid, the question of possession leaps to the foreground. There is little value in a claim against an insolvent buyer for damages or for the price.

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

The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill)¹ into Parliament on 20 May 2020. The Bill is due to proceed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable and is expected to come into force without changes towards the end of June 2020.

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