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.

Real estate lenders and borrowers everywhere are trying to figure out what to do with properties that are either sitting vacant or underperforming pre-pandemic expectations. In New York, a number of mezzanine foreclosures have been pursued with varying degrees of success when challenged in court. Some lenders have been shopping their loans, mostly at discounts to par that are not large enough to create substantial deal flow in the marketplace.

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.

The question is not if but how deeply the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic will disrupt businesses and impact future operations. That answer differs based upon each company’s industry, access to cash and other capital, debt structure, ability to manage expenses, lost revenues, and operational interruption. Certain industries, such as airlines and airline service companies, hotels, restaurants, sports and entertainment, media, and retailers, among others, are suffering immediate adverse effects. Our healthcare resources are being stretched thin.

For retail companies contemplating filing for chapter 11 protection, not only is the time of year of the filing important, but also the expected time frame the case will last. This is particularly important given that the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code modified Section 365(d)(4) to provide that Debtors must assume or reject unexpired leases of nonresidential property within 120 days of the filing.

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).

On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).