OVERVIEW

In the course of implementing EU directive 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, the German legislator intends^[1], among other things, to provide for (i) a Preventive Restructuring Plan as flexible restructuring tool, (ii) further relief in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, and to make small but important changes to the general provisions of German insolvency code.

In an important decision issued at the end of August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Tribune Co., Case No. 18-2909 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2020), held that subordination agreements need not be strictly enforced when confirming a chapter 11 plan pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision in section 1129(b)(1). In its decision, the Third Circuit also encouraged bankruptcy courts to apply “a more flexible unfair-discrimination standard” and set forth eight guiding principles to aid in that effort.

1. Introduction

   The pace at which Corona-Pandemic restricts our way of life and imposes severe consequences on our economy is breathtaking. The results are already evident today with more to come. In widespread parts of the economy, current developments lead to considerable loss of income and drastic decreases in sales and profits.

1. Introduction

   The situation due to the coronavirus has resulted in a massive disruption and to some extent even in a complete standstill of public and social life with far-reaching consequences for the national and international economy. The recent border closures will have a further impact on the movement of people and goods.

   As a result, the German Federal Government has announced that it will provide several instruments to reduce the impact of the situation:

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.

On January 13, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re La Paloma Generating Company, LLC., Case No. 16-12700 [Adv. Pro.

The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on an issue that has greatly divided Circuit Courts of Appeal – the question of whether an entity that retains possession of a debtor’s property has an affirmative obligation to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition or risk being in violation of the automatic stay.

The Supreme Court, in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,¹ issued an unanimous opinion last week, ruling that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly denied the ability of creditor Ritzen Group Inc.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)¹The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.²