In brief

When would the directors of a company be bound to consider the interest of the company's creditors? This was the issue at the heart of the Singapore Court of Appeal's (SGCA) watershed decision in Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10, which comes hot on the heels of the UK Supreme Court's pronouncements on the same issue in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25.

In brief

On 18 January 2024, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) issued its decision in Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2024] SGHC(I) (“Re Garuda Indonesia“), which was the SICC’s first decision on an application under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (as enacted in Singapore in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) (“Singapore Model Law“)).

In brief

On 18 January 2024, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) issued its decision in Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2024] SGHC(I) ("Re Garuda Indonesia"), which was the SICC's first decision on an application under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (as enacted in Singapore in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) ("Singapore Model Law")).

This article originally appeared in Vol. 52 of Kentucky Trucker, a publication of the Kentucky Trucking Association.

This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law Professional Perspectives.

Chapter 11 Subchapter V cases are a relatively new animal in the bankruptcy world. Subchapter V was added to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in February 2020 to provide an efficient and cost-effective alternative process for small businesses wishing to organize under Chapter 11.

Unlike regular Chapter 11 business reorganizations, Subchapter V provides for the appointment of a trustee. However, Subchapter V provides little detail about the role of these trustees. This article discusses how one court dealt with this ambiguity.

Background

The Fifth Circuit recently weighed in on the hotly contested issue of whether the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the bankruptcy court has controlling jurisdiction when it comes to the question of a bankruptcy debtor’s ability to reject contracts regulated by FERC. FERC-regulated contracts include electricity power purchase contracts, as well as transportation services agreements involving oil and gas.

In the bankruptcy world, not all claims are created equal. Rather, certain special categories of claims have priority status and are not only paid ahead of other claims, but are also often paid in full. One such category of claims is found in Bankruptcy Code § 503(b)(9), which grants priority claim status for goods which were sold in the ordinary course of business and received by a debtor within the 20-day window leading up to the bankruptcy filing. The code section is very clear, however.

A divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in the case of In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. on Dec. 12, 2019. The panel decided that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) share jurisdiction when a Chapter 11 debtor moves to reject a power purchase and sale contract over which the FERC has jurisdiction (Power Contract). However, the Sixth Circuit noted that such jurisdiction is not equal; declaring the bankruptcy court’s authority as primary and superior to that of the FERC.