The court will not always set aside a property transfer order in matrimonial proceedings where the party transferring the property, as part of a clean break order, becomes bankrupt shortly afterwards, and there are allegations of lack of consideration or transfer at an undervalue.

An agreement to pay off part of a judgment debt owed jointly with others will not of itself amount to consideration sufficient to prevent a creditor going against a debtor for the unpaid balance of the judgment.

A husband and wife jointly owned their property. In matrimonial proceedings, the husband was ordered to transfer his interest in the property to the wife. Following his bankruptcy, the husband’s trustee applied to set aside the property transfer on the basis that it had been made at an undervalue, and the wife had given no consideration in money or money’s worth within the meaning of s339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The wife contended that the fact that she had foregone ancillary relief claims was capable of amounting to consideration.

MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.

A trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order for sale of a property owned jointly by the bankrupt and his wife, the claimant. The claimant, who suffered chronic ill health, resided in the property. She also jointly owned another property with her brother, and in order to suspend orders for possession and sale of the matrimonial property, offered charges over that other property. This was not accepted by the trustee on the basis that the husband’s creditors would be unlikely to receive payment in the near future.

DURING THE PAST YEAR, many investors in the distressed debt market have received postreorganization private equity1 either through a confirmed plan of reorganization or through participation in a rights offering. Unlike publicly traded equity, each new issuance of postreorganization equity leaves recipients, issuers, and agents potentially facing uncharted territory in terms of how the instrument is to trade and settle.

CURRENTLY, NEGOTIATION and documentation of claims trades remain largely unregulated, with only limited oversight from bankruptcy courts and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Generally, the bankruptcy court’s, or the claims agent’s, involvement in claims trading is ministerial, i.e., maintaining the claims register and recording transfers if the form complies with the rule. Only if there is an objection to a claims transfer does the bankruptcy court become involved in the substance of a transfer.

On April 16, 2009 and April 22, 2009, General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) and certain of its subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), including many subsidiaries structured as special purpose entities (the “SPE Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”).

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed a motion in the bankruptcy court on Nov. 13, 2008, asking the court to approve procedures for (i) assuming (affirming) and assigning derivative contracts entered into before the Debtors commenced their bankruptcy cases, including resolving cure amounts; and (ii) entering into settlement agreements that may establish termination payments and the return of collateral under terminated derivative contracts.

Debtors’ Derivative Contracts

A Chapter 11 debtor’s financial advisers were entitled to a “Success Fee” based on a percentage of a $50-million “debt-to-equity conversion,” held a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 4, 2016. In re Valence Technology, Inc., 2016 WL 2587109, *1 (5th Cir. May 4, 2016) (2-1). Key to the opinion was the parties’ concession that the “debt-to-equity conversion qualified as a Private Placement under [their] engagement agreements.” Id., at n.1.