“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.”

Pre-packs sales are an important arrangement within Administrations and insolvency law. However, their usage has sometimes been considered “controversial”. In response to criticism and following a recent review of existing industry measures, the Government introduced The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 (“the Regulations”). Coming into force on 30 April 2021, the Regulations will provide a new legal framework for pre-packs.

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.

We are still in the early days of the economic shock of the coronavirus, with positive trends not yet clear. Restructuring specialists at Keystone Law have combined our experiences of enquiries from businesses, Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) and other stakeholders during lockdown and noted the following developments which will help businesses and advisors prepare for a post-lockdown business environment:

Businesses will be considering dramatic changes over the next few days and weeks. The Government last week closed certain business such as pubs, theatres, restaurants and cinemas. Last night, the Government went further and ordered that all non-essential retail businesses and hotels should close and that people should not leave their homes to work unless it absolutely cannot be done from home.

With coronavirus causing unprecedented distress to the whole global economy, all types of business in every sector will be affected. These are not normal times, and it is clear that all businesses will need to formulate coherent action plans to survive. The Government appears to be working on emergency plans to provide help to trade and industry that has already been badly affected by underlying economic uncertainties. More high-street names have closed their doors this week.

Retail, as a sector, has long been under pressure from increased competition from online retailers, which has resulted in reduced footfall on the high street, affecting many companies, including many well-known names.

Between 2016 and 2019, 13 of 23 company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), which are used by UK businesses to reduce their debts, saw their group going into administration, while other companies that did not agree a CVA ended up seeking investors to buy the business.

What is a CVA?

Recently, the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) warned that economic conditions are weakening and businesses are struggling, following a survey they have conducted of 6,600 companies employing 1.2 million workers. Their research found that domestic and export sales are falling, and services firms have seen a decrease in work in the three months to September. This has prompted fears that the UK’s economy may fall into recession.

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.”