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

On 24 February 2021, the government published new draft Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations), following the consultation process conducted in late 2020. The Regulations are still to be debated by Parliament, but are expected to come into effect on 30 April 2021 with few substantive amendments.

The United Kingdom formally left the European Union (EU) at 11pm on the 31 January 2020 (Exit Day) and entered into a period of transition. This transition period largely maintained the “status quo” with regards to restructuring and insolvency law and practice, primarily due to the UK having secured ratification of the withdrawal agreement. This made the arrangements between the UK and the EU fully reciprocal post-Exit Day and avoided the no-deal “cliff edge” Brexit, which many had initially feared.

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.

Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).

The recent High Court decision in Hellard & Anor v Registrar of Companies & Ors [2020] EWHC 1561 (Ch) (23 June 2020) serves as a useful reminder to any party seeking the restoration of a company to the Register of Companies that it is important first to consider whether such party has the requisite standing to make the application.