“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.

While the recent Brexit trade deal contains various provisions for the conduct of trade in the post-Brexit era, it does not provide clarification for new cross-border insolvency proceedings involving the United Kingdom.

However, the Withdrawal Agreement which came into force on 1 February 2020 and established the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, does provide some comfort for insolvency practitioners, but only where insolvency proceedings were opened prior to the end of the Brexit transition period.

With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit looming large, the implications for Irish insolvency practitioners is something we will all have to consider. The insolvency landscape will most likely look very different when we all return to the office after Christmas. This is a discussion on some of the possible implications for Irish and UK insolvency practitioners post-Brexit.

Current Regime

With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit looming large, the implications for Irish insolvency practitioners is something we will all have to consider. The insolvency landscape will most likely look very different when we all return to the office after Christmas. This is a discussion on some of the possible implications for Irish and UK insolvency practitioners post-Brexit.

Current Regime

We will soon enter a phase of the Covid19 era when more and more companies will be forced to apply for protection from their creditors under the Examinership provisions of the Companies Act, 2014. Security as always will be a key consideration for the stakeholders in this restructuring process. Fixed and floating charges are almost always well protected but what about personal or corporate guarantees?

The legislation

The legislation is very specific regarding guarantees.

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.

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

Background

The Applicant, Mr Stephen Wallace was a UK based Liquidator of Carna Meats (UK) Limited (the “Company”). He claimed that his investigations into the Company’s affairs has been impeded by a lack of books and records. The Respondent, Mr George Wallace, was the Company’s former bookkeeper based in Ireland and was identified as holding all of the records of the Company. Despite a number requests from the Liquidator, Mr Wallace did not produce the documents.

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.”