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 COVID-19 pandemic is a public health crisis unprecedented in modern history, and the resulting economic dislocation has caused financial distress across supply chains worldwide. In light of this extraordinary crisis—and in anticipation of a wave of defaults by businesses large and small in the months to come—shippers, vendors, and other suppliers are assessing their potential exposures in the event of a customer failure.

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 Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC  clarifies that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365(a)  of the Bankruptcy Code is treated as a breach, and not as a rescission, of that license under § 365(g).  The Court held that if a licensee’s right to use the trademark would survive a breach outside of bankruptcy, that same right survives a rejection in bankruptcy.

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).

On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “FifthCircuit”) issued a decision in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. that could have significant implications for creditors seeking payment of contractual make-whole amounts and post-petition interest from chapter 11 debtors.[1]

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).