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.

Through implementing the EU Restructuring Directive, German restructuring and insolvency law will be modernized, more effective, and enriched by new instruments.

Durch die Umsetzung der EU Restrukturierungs-Richtlinie soll das deutsche Sanierungs- und Insolvenzrecht modernisiert, effektiver gestaltet und um neue Instrumentarien bereichert werden.

Regierungsentwurf setzt EU Restrukturierungs-Richtlinie um und führt neues Sanierungsinstrumentarium ein.

Government draft of law implements EU Restructuring Framework, and introduces new restructuring instruments.

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

The Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) is currently finalizing the law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil, insolvency, and criminal proceedings with extraordinary commitment. It shall be adopted less than two weeks after the beginning of the extensive restrictions on public life and the economy in Germany due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A central element of the law is to facilitate the raising of debt capital in order to support companies in the current situation. For this purpose: