On March 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous decision[1] affirming that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and, therefore, that triangular setoffs are not permissible in bankruptcy.
Recent months have brought unprecedented challenges to businesses, with no sector immune to the economic repercussions of the pandemic. Yet despite headline news of certain high-profile restructurings and insolvencies, such as Virgin Atlantic, Debenhams, and Edinburgh Woollen Mill, it seems the emergency measures implemented by the UK Government have, to a degree, staved off wide spread economic collapse that may otherwise have been inevitable.
In a decision arising out of Tribune’s 2008 bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a decision affirming confirmation of the media conglomerate’s chapter 11 plan over objections raised by senior noteholders who contended that the plan violated their rights under the Bankruptcy Code by not according them the full benefit of their prepetition subordination agreements with other creditors.
Re Joint Provisional Liquidators of Moody Technology Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 416
The Hong Kong Court has explained why there is no inconsistency between: (a) its domestic insolvency law which does not permit the appointment of provisional liquidators purely for the purposes of restructuring the company; and (b) common law recognition of foreign "soft-touch" provisional liquidators.
What is a soft-touch provisional liquidator?
Introduction
The immediate focus for Britain’s authorities when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic has been, quite rightly, to secure the best possible health outcome for the greatest number of people.
Subsequently, following a wave of concern regarding the best way of maintaining the financial status-quo for (i) businesses, (ii) employees, and (iii) individuals, the UK government announced an unprecedented series of assistance programmes, designed to counter the impact of previously unknown, and unquantifiable, distress.
Introduction
Clearly there are some major economic challenges ahead.
Many businesses may be able to withstand the challenges ahead but it may very well be that their trading counterparties (whether suppliers, customers or other stakeholders) will not. Whilst these times can represent an opportunity for some, such as potential acquirers (whether of businesses, assets or distressed debt), in most cases, the climate represents a threat to businesses.
The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”
In a recent decision arising out of the Republic Airways bankruptcy, Judge Sean Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the liquidated damages provisions of certain aircraft leases were improper penalties and, thus, “unenforceable as against public policy” under Article 2A the New York Uniform Commercial Code. In re Republic Airways Holdings Inc., 2019 WL 630336 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019).
On February 8, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, affirmed a Bankruptcy Court order enjoining a claimant from pursuing claims against a debtor’s non-debtor affiliates based upon third-party release and injunction provisions included in the debtor’s confirmed chapter 11 plan. In re CJ Holding Co., 2019 WL 497728 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2019).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).