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

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.