Recent insolvencies remind us that, when a seller of goods is unpaid, the question of possession leaps to the foreground. There is little value in a claim against an insolvent buyer for damages or for the price.

The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill)¹ into Parliament on 20 May 2020. The Bill is due to proceed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable and is expected to come into force without changes towards the end of June 2020.

Zenrock Commodities Trading Pte Ltd is one of the latest additions to the increasing list of commodities traders in Singapore making recent headlines, with financial difficulties and malpractice allegations coming to light. The COVID-19 crisis, oil price volatility and slumping demand are acting as a catalyst, and are affecting a majority of oil majors and traders in Singapore and the region.

In the light of increased volatility across many markets and disruptions to economic activity, parties to transactions that are subject to ISDA Master Agreements¹ will need to think about what strategies they would adopt if an Event of Default occurs with respect to their counterparties.

Choices

This note sets out the circumstances in which a creditor may successfully lift a statutory moratorium against a company in administration in England and Wales, and in Singapore.

English law

Our private credit clients are preparing for the next restructuring cycle and have called us about ultrafast bankruptcy cases. These chapter 11 cases have grabbed headlines because they lasted less than a day. Specifically, FullBeauty Brands and Sungard Availability Services emerged from bankruptcy in 24 hours and 19 hours, respectively. Is this a trend and which companies are best suited to zip through chapter 11?

A. Prepacks, Pre-Negotiated Cases, and Free-Falls

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.