In life (as in business), as Heraclitus said, “the only constant is change.” In today’s fast-paced economy, this axiom should be kept in mind during contract negotiations, especially in a bear market.

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.

Op 12 november 2020 heeft de Tweede Kamer het wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van de Tijdelijke wet COVID-19 SZW en JenV (35557) als hamerstuk aangenomen. Vandaag, 24 november 2020, is het wetsvoorstel ook door de Eerste Kamer als hamerstuk afgedaan. Het wetvoorstel maakt het mogelijk (in Hoofdstuk 2 Tijdelijke voorziening betalingsuitstel COVID-19) om de rechter te verzoeken:

A legislative proposal to amend the Temporary Act COVID-19 was adopted by the Dutch parliament on 12 November 2020, and adopted by the Dutch Senate on 24 November 2020. The proposal (the COVID-19 Amendment Act) will enter into force shortly and remain in effect until 1 February 2021. This GT Alert summarizes the measures included in COVID-19 Amendment Act Chapter 2 (Temporary measures for the stay on recovery measures COVID-19).

The COVID-19 Amendment Act provides (in Chapter 2) for the possibility of the debtor requesting that the courts, in connection with the pandemic:

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).

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

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