Is an insolvent debtor’s pre-bankruptcy termination of a commercial lease a fraudulent transfer? The Third Circuit said no when it held that a lessor’s pre-bankruptcy termination of the debtors’ lease and purchase option “was not a transfer under Bankruptcy Code §548(a) (1)(B).” In re Pazzo Pazzo Inc., 2022 WL 17690158 (3d Cir. Dec. 15, 2022). But the Seventh Circuit held that a chapter 11 debtor’s pre-bankruptcy “surrender of [two] … leases to [its landlord] could be regarded as a preferential [or fraudulent] transfer.” In re Great Lakes Quick Lube L.P., 816 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2016).
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled on the question of whether an agreement that grants release from a contract on grounds of insolvency or the opening of insolvency proceedings is effective.
Background
On May 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit” or the “Court”) rendered a much anticipated opinion (the “Opinion”),1 reversing the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit non-consensual third-party releases of direct claims and affirming the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the
In Re Guy Lam Kwok Hung [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified when a debtor can resist a bankruptcy petition based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in his contract with the petitioner creditor. It is important to appreciate the Court’s reasoning and how it can be applied to various factual scenarios.
Section 503(b)(9) Overview
The enforcement of court orders that are designed to preserve, trace or track crypto-assets within North America is often limited in practice. As seen in the recent Ontario decision of Cicada 137 LLC v. Medjedovic (“Cicada”),[1] mechanisms by which legal enforcement principles can be effectively applied against stolen or misappropriated crypto-assets are constrained.
COMPETITION LAW
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Code) provides the right to a financial creditor to make an application to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor in the event the debtor fails to repay its debt owed to the creditor. The Code as well as precedents developed by insolvency courts have consistently held that the test for admission of an insolvency application of a financial creditor is twofold, existence of a debt and default on that debt.
Currently, the British Virgin Islands has no legislative framework for regulating third party litigation funding. Until recently, the absence of such a framework led many to believe that the rules against maintenance and champerty still operated so as in practice to prevent litigants from raising funds from third parties to prosecute or to defend claims. In Crumpler v Exential Investments Inc (BVIHC(COM) 2020/0081; 29 September 2020) Jack J clarified that third party funding arrangements were enforceable in the BVI.
The law regarding moratoriums imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code[1] (hereinafter referred to as the IBC 2016) has been often explained and clarified by various judicial pronouncements, which aptly interpret the multitudes contained in Section 14 of the IBC.