Preferences are a common issue in bankruptcy proceedings. A general overview of preferences in bankruptcy can be found here.

The Bankruptcy Code provides several affirmative defenses to assist creditors in mitigating or eliminating their preference exposure. We have previously addressed the new value defense2 and the ordinary course of business defense3. This article will briefly address another common affirmative defense: the contemporaneous exchange defense.

Die Anforderungen der Finanzverwaltung an die Steuerfreiheit von unternehmensbezogenen Sanierungen steigen in der Praxis.

The Court of Civil Appeal (CCA) delivered an interesting judgment on the adequacy of affidavit evidence when making a bankruptcy order. The CCA, acting solely on the basis of affidavit evidence, upheld an order of the Bankruptcy Court adjudging the appellant (Mr Balgobin) bankrupt pursuant to Section 8 of the Insolvency Act. The issues raised on appeal by the Appellant and which the CCA had to determine on were:

The Supreme Court of Gibraltar has confirmed that the court does not have the power to extend the time for the filing of an application to set aside a statutory demand issued under the Insolvency Act 2011.

A party that claims it is owned monies (the amount must be more than £750) is entitled to issue a statutory demand against the debtor. If the debtor does not apply to the court to set aside the demand within 21 days of being served, the court has no power to extend the time for doing so.

Highlights

Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b)(6) establishes a Statutory Cap on the damages a landlord can claim arising from the termination of a lease in bankruptcy case. Courts have split on how to calculate the Statutory Cap, whether and how to apply letters of credit to reduce the Statutory Cap, and whether the Statutory Cap applies to a landlord’s claims against a lessee’s debtor-guarantor.

On March 26, 2024, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion addressing the foregoing issues:

The existence of a bankruptcy option is a good thing for any debtor-creditor situation that is highly stressed—whether the bankruptcy option is used or not.

This is especially true in mass-tort cases where a potential exists for (i) hugely-disparate results for similarly situated plaintiffs, and (ii) debilitating delays in the progress of litigation.

In France, losses incurred by a company in a given fiscal year can be carried forward to offset profits in subsequent years, without time limit. The annual offset against future profits is limited to a maximum of €1 million, plus 50% of the portion of profit exceeding this threshold. Any unused balance is carried forward to the following year. It is also possible to opt to carry back losses against the previous year's profits, up to a maximum of €1 million.

When a bankruptcy debtor rejects a lease, a landlord is entitled to a rejection damages claim. Under Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, a landlord’s claim is capped at “the rent reserved by such lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or 15%, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease.”

Courts have taken two different approaches in interpreting what constitutes the “15%” in the statute: (A) the remaining rent due under the lease; or (B) the remaining time under the lease.

The “Rent Approach”

An insolvency administrator may lose their right to restitution arising from an insolvency avoidance if they are prevented from exercising the right in good faith by their conduct in the context of the conclusion of a redemption agreement, by which the creditor (and opposing party) waives rights to separate satisfaction.

Decision