In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).

Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the election of a tenant, under Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code, to remain in possession of real property governed by a rejected lease causes a third-party guaranty on another rejected agreement to remain in effect, to the extent such agreement and the lease are part of an integrated transaction.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

Dischargeable Claims

On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, contains a range of significant reforms, not least of which is the introduction of a new Restructuring Plan process dubbed the super scheme. The first such Restructuring Plan, used in the financial restructuring of Virgin Atlantic Airways (VAA), was sanctioned by the High Court on 2 September 2020 representing a new landmark in the UK restructuring landscape.

As we enter the final quarter of what has been a tumultuous year, the UK restructuring market has been open as usual for companies and creditors seeking to use the flexible restructuring implementation process of a Part 26 “scheme of arrangement” or the latest and greatest restructuring process now found in Part 26A of the Companies Act, a “restructuring plan” (or “Super Scheme” as we like to dub it).

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, contains a range of significant reforms, not least of which is the introduction of a new Restructuring Plan process dubbed the Super Scheme. The first such Restructuring Plan, used in the financial restructuring of Virgin Atlantic Airways (VAA), was sanctioned by the High Court on 2 September 2020 representing a new landmark in the UK restructuring landscape.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, contains a range of significant reforms, not least of which is the introduction of a new Restructuring Plan process dubbed the Super Scheme. The first such Restructuring Plan, used in the financial restructuring of Virgin Atlantic Airways (VAA), was sanctioned by the High Court on 2 September 2020 representing a new landmark in the UK restructuring landscape.