导言

Introduction

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background

A new cooperation arrangement for mutual recognition of and assistance to cross-border corporate insolvency and debt restructuring proceedings has been established between Mainland China and Hong Kong (the Cooperation Arrangement).

The Cooperation Arrangement is provided in a Record of Meeting on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the ROM) signed by the Mainland’s Supreme People's Court (SPC) and Hong Kong’s Department of Justice on 14 May 2021.

On July 2, 2021, Something Sweet, Inc., a New Haven, Connecticut-based bakery that “provides high quality pies and cakes to the largest retailers in the country,” filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 21-10993). The company estimates $10 to $50 million in assets and liabilities.

In a previous article, I discussed the potential impacts of a then-forthcoming decision in the case of In re United Cannabis Corporation, which had the potential to widen access to federal bankruptcy relief to cannabis-adjacent hemp businesses.

On 28 June 2021, the English High Court handed down a judgment declining to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Hurricane Energy PLC, which sought to cram down the dissenting class of shareholders and hand over the control of the company to its bondholders with a debt-for-equity swap diluting the shareholders down to 5% of their existing shareholding. This is the first time that the English court has declined to sanction a restructuring plan (since their introduction almost a year ago in June 2020), and only the fourth time that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used.

This article looks at some recent developments in the bankruptcy and insolvency laws in Singapore and Malaysia.

Singapore: Dispositions of property

Under the Singapore bankruptcy law, any disposition of property made by a bankrupt since the day of making the application for the bankruptcy order is void unless the court consents to, or ratifies, the disposition. This rule is enshrined in section 328 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, 2018 (the IRDA).

During the second trimester of 2021, 9 petitions in bankruptcy were filed, notified, and registered on the Federal Insolvency Institute's records.

ABC Aerolíneas, S. A. de C. V. (Interjet).

Although Interjet announced its plan to file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, a creditor filed an involuntary petition against the airline before a District Court in Mexico City. The involuntary petition was admitted on Abril 24, 2021 and Interjet appeared voluntarily to be served to process on June 21, 2021.

A recent case before bankruptcy judge Karen B. Owens of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Dura Auto. Sys., LLC, No. 19-12378 (KBO), 2021 WL 2456944 (Bankr. D. Del. June 16, 2021), provides a cautionary reminder that the Third Circuit does not recognize the doctrine of implied assumption (i.e., assumptions implied through a course of conduct as opposed to those that are assumed pursuant to a motion and court order).