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 UK Government has announced changes to the regime for winding-up petitions. With effect from 1 October 2021, some of the protections currently afforded to businesses against aggressive debt recovery action are being phased out.

The changes are intended to avoid a 'cliff edge' for debtor companies when the current measures lapse at the end of September 2021, and have a tapering effect to avoid the flood of winding-up petitions that might otherwise be expected.

What are the current restrictions (in place until 30 September 2021)?

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

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020. It implements the measures announced by the UK government on 23 April 2020 to safeguard against aggressive rent collection tactics. It follows the ban on forfeiture for non-payment of rent contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 which came into effect on 25 March 2020. In this article, DLA Piper’s experienced Real Estate and Restructuring lawyers assess the debt collection restrictions contained in both Acts.

On 23 April 2020, the UK Government announced that the use of statutory demands and winding-up petitions would be restricted to ‘safeguard the UK high street against aggressive debt recovery actions' during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 23 April 2020, the UK Government announced that the use of statutory demands and winding-up petitions would be restricted to ‘safeguard the UK high street against aggressive debt recovery actions' during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

In a world of multinational businesses, ever-changing consumer trends and political uncertainties, insolvencies and financial restructurings of a cross-border nature are a common occurrence. Officeholders therefore frequently need to consider options that allow, at the very least, recognition of their appointment in the jurisdictions where the insolvent debtor has (or had) operations, assets or other relevant connections.