Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, may be granted when there is a risk that a defendant might move its assets out of reach of the court’s jurisdiction. Mareva can orders freeze assets owned directly or indirectly by the defendants. Oftentimes a defendant subject to a freezing order has other creditors seeking repayment. Can a creditor enforce its claim against the frozen assets? Yes, but the creditor must come to the court with clean hands and should not make loans to the defendant if it has notice of the order.

We have previouslyblogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548.

In 2019, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act, which created subchapter V within chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Congress’ intent was to create a more cost-efficient and streamlined restructuring process for small businesses by modifying certain provisions of chapter 11 for debtors with claims below a specific debt cap. In particular, because creditors typically have smaller claims against these small businesses, the new subchapter takes into account the likelihood that there will be no or minimal meaningful creditor participation.

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

The Act of 7 August 2023 on the preservation of businesses and the modernization of bankruptcy law, which came into force on 1 November 2023 ("Act"), has been met with great relief and enthusiasm from practitioners and businesses alike. It finally offers alternatives to the systematic bankruptcy of a company that is unable to pay its debts for lack of liquidity, despite the existence of assets or medium-term growth potential.

Publicly, Diamond Finance Co. (“Diamond”) provided car loans to individuals with less-than-stellar credit. While Diamond did have “some actual business,” its purpose “quickly became a front to lure unsuspecting investors.”

The Fifth Circuit recently ruled that a debtor can sell a preferential transfer action under Bankruptcy Code section 363 to a purchaser that is not a representative of the bankruptcy estate. Briar Cap. Working Fund Cap., L.L.C. v. Remmert (In re S. Coast Supply Co.), No. 22-20536, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2024).

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 29 February 2024, the court of appeal will hear an appeal against an order for the insolvent liquidation of a company that unsuccessfully argued, at first instance, that the petitioning debt was subject to a dispute covered by contractual agreements to arbitrate. While the interplay between insolvency and arbitration is not a new issue, the upcoming hearing will be the first time after the court of final appeal's decision in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 ("Guy Lam") for the court of appeal to clarify the principles.

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox recently found that three Illinois attorneys violated their ethical obligations by failing to return their client’s phone calls. She thus ordered the attorneys to return half of their already-court-approved, and paid, flat fee.

In In re: Dennis Molnar, 19-bk-09525, 2024 WL 190919 (Jan. 17, 2024 N.D, Ill.), the debtor filed a petition seeking relief under chapter 13. Originally, three attorneys from the same firm represented the debtor. The attorneys appeared pursuant to a “no look,” flat-fee program for chapter 13 debtors’ attorneys.