A secured lender's "mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy repossession] does not violate" the automatic stay provision [362(a) (3)] of the Bankruptcy Code, held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, 4 ( Jan. 14, 2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit's affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved "a split" in the Circuits. Id. at 2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit.

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied "Colorado law to resolve" the question of "who owns the federal tax refund." Id., at 2.

A lender’s state law tort claims against “non-debtor third-parties for tortious interference with a contract” were “not preempted” by “federal bankruptcy law,” held the New York Court of Appeals on Nov. 24, 2020. Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky, 2020 WL 6875979, *1 (N.Y. Ct. Appeals, Nov. 24, 2020) (4-3). In a split opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of a lender’s complaint against the debtors’ non-debtor insiders. The lender will still have to prove its case at trial.

The Asserted Claims

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied “Colorado law to resolve” the question of “who owns the federal tax refund.” Id., at *2.

I. Introduction

Due to the current corona crisis and the therewith associated tense economic situation, many managing directors (Geschäftsführer) are faced with the question of a possible, punitive obligation to file for insolvency as well as other duties that must be observed in the context of a crisis.

The following provides an overview of the obligation to file for insolvency, payment prohibitions in a crisis as well as the facilitations introduced under the German COVID-19 legislation.

With unanimous vote, the German Parliament passed the Law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil, criminal and insolvency law. This new law brings with it several (temporary) changes of law all of which aim at mitigating the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in both private and business life. Inter alia, the following provisions have been implemented:

1. Suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency

On Monday, 16 March 2020, the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz) announced that they are working on a legislative provision according to which the obligation to file for insolvency within three weeks following the occurrence of a reason for insolvency (i.e. illiquidity or over-indebtedness) would be suspended for such entities which face liquidity issues due to the Corona (COVID-19) pandemic.

A bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction was “not a final and immediately appealable order,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Dec. 10, 2019. In re Alcor Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 6716420, 4 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2019). The court declined to “exercise [its] discretion” under 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3) to hear the interlocutory appeal. Id., citing 16 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3926.1 (3d ed. 2017) (“There is no provision for appeal as of right from an injunction order of a bankruptcy judge to the district court.”).

A creditor’s “later-in-time reclamation demand is ‘subject to’ [a lender’s] prior rights as a secured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020. In re HHGregg, Inc., 2020 WL 628268 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020). And “[w]hen a lender insists on collateral, it expects the collateral to be worth something,” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020, when rejecting a guarantor’s “novel reading” of his security agreement. In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, 2020 WL 628542 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020).

Lender repossesses the equipment of its business borrower after it defaults on its secured loan agreement. Because borrower needs the equipment to run its business, it then files a Chapter 11 petition and promptly asks lender to return the equipment. Lender refuses because the equipment secures the defaulted loan. Depending on where the debtor sought bankruptcy relief (e.g., New York or New Jersey), lender may be subject to sanctions for holding on to the equipment.