The Situation: In the past few weeks, due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 crisis on non-essential businesses forced to close and terminate employees after filing for chapter 11 protection, bankruptcy courts have been confronted with requests by debtors to temporarily suspend their bankruptcy cases using the courts' equitable powers and a seldom-used provision of the Bankruptcy Code: 11 U.S.C. § 305(a).

In This Issue:

U.S. Supreme Court: Creditors May Immediately Appeal Denials of Automatic-Stay Relief

Jamais dans l’histoire les entreprises de toutes tailles et de pratiquement toutes les industries n’ont affronté une crise résultant à la fois d’un tarissement des sources d’approvisionnement et de la demande de façon simultanée. La crise de liquidités qui en découle engendre une insécurité omniprésente au sein des gestionnaires des entreprises et de l’ensemble des parties intéressées de celles-ci, incluant leurs employés, actionnaires, clients, fournisseurs, créanciers et les communautés dans lesquelles les entreprises opèrent.

Never before in history have businesses of all sizes and of all or almost all industries faced a crisis resulting from a simultaneous decline of supply and demand. The resulting liquidity crisis is creating pervasive insecurity among the managers of businesses and the stakeholders of those businesses, including their employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, creditors and the communities in which the businesses operate.

As governments impose restrictions on travel and more and more people are self-isolating and taking steps towards social distancing, the entire travel industry, the live entertainment industry and businesses with bricks and mortar presences, like restaurants and retail stores, expect to experience an immediate drop in revenue.

In McKillen v. Wallace (In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd.), 2019 WL 4740249 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had an opportunity to consider, as an apparent matter of first impression, whether the U.S. common law "Barton Doctrine" applies extraterritorially. One of the issues considered by the district court on appeal was whether parties attempting to sue a foreign representative in a chapter 15 case must first obtain permission to sue from the foreign court that appointed the foreign representative.

In In re O’Reilly, 598 B.R. 784 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the petition of a foreign bankruptcy trustee for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s Bahamian bankruptcy case. Although the Bahamian bankruptcy was otherwise eligible for chapter 15 recognition, the U.S.

The Ontario Court of Appeal determines when it is appropriate to vest out a royalty interest as part of an insolvency proceeding

The Importance of the Decision

For more than a century, courts in England and Wales have refused to recognize or enforce foreign court judgments or proceedings that discharge or compromise debts governed by English law. In accordance with a rule (the "Gibbs Rule") stated in an 1890 decision by the English Court of Appeal, creditors holding debt governed by English law may still sue to recover the full amount of their debts in England even if such debts have been discharged or modified in connection with a non-U.K.

U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." Prior to the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, the procedure for obtaining comity from a U.S. court in cases involving a foreign bankruptcy or insolvency case was haphazard and unpredictable. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois indicates that the enactment of chapter 15 was a game changer in this context. In Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v.