The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

Are the courts of England and Wales establishing themselves as a flexible forum for cross-border enforceability? Here, we consider this question in light of two recent High Court decisions: Re Silverpail Dairy (Ireland) Unlimited Co. [2023] EWHC 895 (Ch) (Silverpail) and Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini & Ors [2023] EWHC 2302 (Comm) (Invest Bank).

Insolvency related claims in relation to contracts subject to arbitration agreements continue to result in interesting challenges for the English court. In a recent decision the court had to decide whether an application for a summary judgment amounted to a step in the proceedings such that the applicant had waived its right to seek a stay in favour of arbitration.

Background

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 English courts are known for being pro-arbitration. In the recent case of Riverrock Securities Limited v International Bank of St Petersburg (Joint Stock Company) [2020] EWHC 2483 (Comm) the English High Court has granted an anti-suit injunction in relation to claims being made in foreign bankruptcy proceedings, where the underlying agreements included arbitration provisions with a London seat.

The parties

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 Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, which found that the bankruptcy of the Russian based oil company, Yukos, could not be recognised in the Netherlands because it violates Dutch public policy.