Chapter 11 plans commonly protect a debtor’s key stakeholders that participate in the chapter 11 process from claims arising in connection with the bankruptcy case. The Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”), the branch of the Department of Justice tasked with monitoring bankruptcy cases, has recently taken aim at limiting the use and scope of these “exculpation” provisions in large restructuring cases across the country.

Background and Standards

On April 19, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from the Second Circuit’s decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation (“Tribune II”),[1] leaving intact the Second Circuit’s decision upholding the safe harbor defense to avoidance actions und

“The discharge of claims in bankruptcy applies with no less force to claims that are meritorious, sympathetic, or diligently pursued. Though the result may chafe one’s innate sense of fairness, not all unfairness represents a violation of due process.”

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.

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 Law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID 19 pandemic in civil, insolvency and criminal procedure law ("Gesetz zur Abmilderung der Folgen der COVID-19-Pandemie im Zivil-, Insolvenz- und Strafverfahrensrecht") was adopted by the German Bundestag on 25 March and approved by the Bundesrat representing the federal states on 27 March 2020. With its draft published by the German Federal government on 23 March 2020, the implementation was probably the fastest legislative procedure of such scope in the history of the Federal Republic.

In the light of immense pressure on the liquidity of many companies and obligations to file for insolvency in case of illiquidity or overindebtedness, the Germany government will suspend this obligation until 30 September 2020. The suspension will apply if the insolvency is caused by the coronavirus pandemic and if there are sufficient prospects that the company can be turned around.

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to shake global markets, it is likely that more companies will need to restructure to address liquidity constraints, to right-size their balance sheets, or to implement operational restructurings. In addition to a potential surge in restructurings, the spread of COVID-19 is already having pronounced impacts on companies planning or pursuing restructurings, and further market turmoil may cause even broader changes to the restructuring marketplace.

Potential Increase in Restructuring Activity

Das Oberlandesgericht München hat in einem bisher unveröffentlichten Hinweisbeschluss^[1] die Rechtsauffassung des Oberlandesgerichts Celle^[2] und des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorfs^[3] bestätigt, dass für Ansprüche des Insolvenzverwalters gegen Geschäftsführer wegen Zahlungen trotz Insolvenzreife kein Versicherungsschutz unter einer D&O-Versicherung besteht. Daneben hat das Oberlandesgericht München auch zur Verteilung der Darlegungs- und Beweislast in Abtretungskonstellationen Stellung bezogen.

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.”