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.

As reported earlier, a new corporate restructuring law will be enacted in Germany. The new law's centerpiece will be the so-called stabilization and restructuring framework ("SRF"). The German Parliament (the Bundestag) passed the law on 17 December 2020. On 18 December 2020 the law was also accepted by the Federal Council (the Bundesrat). It will come into force on 1 January 2021, already.

Wie bereits berichtet erhält Deutschland ein neues Restrukturierungsrecht für Unternehmen, dessen Herzstück der sogenannte Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen („SRR“) ist. Der Bundestag hat das entsprechende Gesetz am 17. Dezember 2020 verabschiedet. Am 18. Dezember 2020 wurde das Gesetz auch durch den Bundesrat gebilligt. Es wird bereits am 1. Januar 2021 in Kraft treten.

Germany's new restructuring regime is expected to come into force 0n 1 January 2021. At the heart of the new regulation is the introduction of a so-called stabilization and restructuring framework (“SRF”) for companies. In a sea change to the traditional approach, the SRF enables a company to be restructured before insolvency proceedings have to be initiated. It is therefore expected that this new regime will have a major impact on German restructuring practice.

Introduction of a Preventive Restructuring Framework

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.

Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht, Lockerung der Zahlungsverbote, Einschränkung der Insolvenzanfechtung, Ausschluss der Kündigung von Miet- und Pachtverhältnissen sowie Verbraucherdarlehensverträgen, Moratorium zu Gunsten von Verbrauchern und Kleinstunternehmen betreffend wesentlicher Dauerschuldverhältnisse, weitere Regelungen

Gesetz zur Abmilderung der Folgen der COVID-19 Pandemie

Wi­der­le­gung der Ver­mu­tung ei­ner ein­ge­tre­te­nen Zah­lungs­un­fä­hig­keit durch Ein­ho­lung ei­nes Sach­ver­stän­di­gen­gut­ach­tens (BGH, Be­schluss vom 12. Sep­tem­ber 2019 – IX ZR 342/18)

Ein kürz­lich er­gan­ge­ner Be­schluss des BGH setzt sich mit der Fra­ge aus­ein­an­der, wie der An­fech­tungs­geg­ner der An­nah­me der Zah­lungs­un­fä­hig­keit des Schuld­ners im Pro­zess ent­ge­gen­tre­ten kann.

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).