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.

Algemeen wordt aangenomen dat dit najaar een gevaarlijke fase wordt voor vele ondernemingen. Naar de reden daarvoor hoeven we niet ver te zoeken alhoewel het misschien een beetje te gemakkelijk is alle schuld in de schoenen van Corona te steken. Het is in alle geval al lang geen schande meer om te moeten toegeven dat het soms moeilijk is om alle leveranciers te betalen.

On entend de manière générale que cet automne sera une période dangereuse pour de nombreuses entreprises. Et il n'est évidemment pas nécessaire de chercher bien loin pour en connaître la raison, bien que la situation économique difficile actuelle ne trouve pas sa cause unique dans la crise subie suite au Coronavirus. En tout cas, il n’y a rien d’honteux à admettre que l’on peut avoir du mal à payer tous ses fournisseurs.

It is generally accepted that the last quarter of 2020 will be a risky period for many businesses. The reason for this is not far-fetched, although it is maybe a little too easy to put all the blame on Corona. In any case, it is no longer a disgrace to have to admit problems to pay all suppliers.

During lockdown period, many companies were still able to survive with the special government coronacrisis measures. But now, as these measures are being systematically phased out, risk of bankruptcy has increased.

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.

Het retentierecht dat reeds lang aanvaard wordt als een handig middel om alsnog betaald te worden, kreeg pas in 2018 een wettelijke basis met de nieuwe Pandwet. Onlangs kreeg het retentierecht nog een een steuntje bij van het Hof van Cassatie. 

1. Waar gaat het over?

Het retentierecht is een handig middel voor schuldeisers die niet betaald worden en in het bezit zijn van een goed van hun schuldenaar.

On 24 April 2020, Royal Decree No 15 has been published which temporarily protects companies against conservatory and enforcement attachment and bankruptcy (and judicial dissolution) and the dissolution of agreements due to non-payment.

This does not affect the obligation to pay due debts.

This temporary suspension of legal actions that may lead to insolvency applies from 24 April 2020 to 17 May 2020 for all enterprises whose continuity is threatened by the corona crisis, provided that they were not already in default on 18 March 2020.

The authorities have taken several measures to support businesses and employment, under the pressure of the corona crisis. Measures in relation to tax and social security, temporary unemployment and state financial support were taken. An agreement with the financial sector to grant payment facilities was reached, as well.

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

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.”