The case in question is CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19. The decision was delivered on 5 March 2021 by the Singapore Court of Appeal.
The judgment addresses issues surrounding claims by a bank under assignments and other security documents over rights in and receivables under commodities supply contracts, and overturns the Singapore High Court decision in CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 117.
Summary
The race to vaccinate Americans is likely to bring an end to the pandemic in the months ahead, but the outlook for the U.S. economy is far less certain. On Friday, the Federal Reserve Board delivered its Monetary Policy Report to Congress. While providing statistics suggesting that U.S. businesses could rebound when the pandemic ends, the report noted significant risks of business bankruptcies as well as a steep drop in commercial real estate prices.
Credit bidding is the process whereby a lender, with a secured charge over a borrower’s asset, bids on that asset using the very debt that is owed by the borrower to the lender. The circumstances are usually foreclosure of a lending position against a borrower.
In the maritime sector, this process often takes place in the context of forced judicial sales of vessels pendente lite (i.e., during the course of litigation) and frequently before judgment is obtained against the borrower shipowner.
Hot on the heels of the landmark changes to the insolvency landscape brought by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) (see our previous article on CIGA), the Government recently announced reforms relating to pre-packaged administration sales to connected parties.
We recently reported on Delaware Judge Christopher Sontchi’s decision in the Extraction bankruptcy to permit the rejection of midstream gathering agreements.1 Fellow Delaware Judge Karen Owens followed Extraction in the Southland Royalty decision issued November 13, 2020.2 Judge Owens determined that Southland Royalty Company, LLC (“Southland”), an E&P operator with assets primarily in Wyoming, could reject the gas gathering agreement and sell its assets free and clear of the agreement.
Summary of decisions In re Body Transit, Inc., No. BR 2010014 ELF, 2020 WL 1486784 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2020).
Straffi v Aeris Bank (In re Hillesland), No. 1925278( CMG), 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2235 (Bankr. D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2020).
Case Snapshot The Bankruptcy Court held that a chapter 7 trustee could avoid judgment creditor’s lien pursuant to his “strongarm” powers under section 544(a) of the bankruptcy code because the judgment creditor did not make a good faith effort to locate debtor’s personal property before it levied against real property, as required under applicable New Jersey law.
In re Tribune Company, et al. No. 182909 (3d Cir. filed Aug. 26, 2020).
Case Snapshot
In re Affordable Auto Repair, Inc., No. 6:19bk18367MW, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2366 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020).
Case Snapshot
2020 has seen a significant increase in chapter 11 filings by oil and gas producers. Critical to the operations of these companies, and to the transportation and processing of the producer’s gas, are gathering agreements entered into between the producers and midstream companies. A pivotal question posed at the start of these chapter 11 proceedings is whether the gathering agreements are executory contracts subject to rejection or whether they create real property interests that cannot be rejected in chapter 11 proceedings. The answer depends on who you ask.