In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied a debtor’s motion to reject a contract as executory under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, holding that the prepetition entry of a court order which required specific performance of a contract rendered the contract non-executory and, therefore, non-rejectable. In re Bennett Enters., Case No. 20-23761 (JNP), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 625 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2021) (“Bennett Enterprises”).
Background
With data privacy issues constantly in the news, what do businesses need to know about handling personal information when they’re considering bankruptcy, especially if some personal information – like customer records – may be a valuable asset?
Executive Summary
- The judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited recognised that insolvent parties have an unfettered right to adjudicate.
- In so doing the judgment opened the door for Insolvency Practitioners to use adjudication, or the threat of adjudication, to resolve disputes arising under construction contracts.
PRIOR TO BRESCO
Mr Justice Snowden’s recent judgment sanctioning the Virgin Active restructuring plans is significant for several reasons. Not only is it the first judgment to consider the cram down power of the 2006 Companies Act, but it is only the third instance that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used. It is also the first time it has been used to cram down classes of dissenting landlords.
Introduction
A fundamental tenet of bankruptcy law is that a debtor will have the ability to get a fresh start once it emerges. A company’s ability to discharge liabilities is among the primary drivers for seeking protection under chapter 11 and, thus, it is of no surprise that ensuring necessary steps are taken for a successful discharge is of utmost importance. Absent a successful discharge of prepetition claims, the reorganized debtor may be saddled with additional liabilities, reducing value for plan stakeholders. The recent Third Circuit unreported decision – Sweeney v.
Executive Summary
On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.
Introduction
The current legislation, particularly the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020; Coronavirus (No 2) (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, contain measures to protect debtors affected by Covid-19.
These measures restrict the options available to landlords and creditors and have been extended to remain in force until 30 September 2021, although some measures will cease on 30 June pending subject to any further extension which may be granted.
Commercial Leases
Irritancy