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.

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 (the "Act") obtained Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 and came into effect on 26 June 2020.

The Act is intended to offer protection to businesses that are having difficulties trading due to the current economic downturn and beyond, and generally marks a shift towards a more debtor-friendly regime. The provisions will be relevant to occupational pension schemes.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the "Act") obtained Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 and came into effect on 26 June 2020.

The Act is intended to offer protection to businesses that are having difficulties trading due to the current economic downturn and beyond, and generally marks a shift towards a more debtor-friendly regime. The provisions will be relevant to occupational pension schemes.

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 Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.

The (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.

he Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.

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 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.