In the recent case – Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak and others and another appeal [2020] SGCA 85 (‘Paulus Tannos’), the Singapore Court of Appeal held that in determining whether to recognise a foreign bankruptcy order, the Singapore Courts could decline to recognise the foreign bankruptcy order (‘BO’) if there was, according to Singapore law, a breach of natural justice in obtaining the foreign BO.
Facts
No one could have predicted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on businesses and economies worldwide. It has crippled companies all over the world with household names such as Macy’s in the US filing for bankruptcy and closer to home, the collapse of commodities trading giant Hin Leong Trading. Unfortunately, analysts speculate the worst is yet to come.
“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).
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.
A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).
A recent ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California endorsed a path toward enforceability of prospective waivers of the automatic stay in certain circumstances. In short, such a waiver approved in a bankruptcy case may be enforceable in a subsequent bankruptcy case. This offers creditors a tactical opportunity to significantly better their position in such a subsequent case.
While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]
A recent ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals resulted in an otherwise secured lender’s claim being rendered unsecured because the lender ignored warning signs casting doubt on the debtor’s right to pledge the collateral. In Grede v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (In re Sentinel Management Group, Inc.), 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 284, the debtor was a cash management company. It invested its customers money and held the purchased securities for its customers’ accounts. The debtor also traded on its own account, and borrowed money to do so.