The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down three rulings potentially impacting bankruptcy cases.

Nunc Pro TuncRelief

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, No. 18-921, 2020 WL 871715 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2020), the Court circumscribed the use of nunc pro tunc ("now for then") orders that make relief ordered by a court apply retroactively to an earlier point in time.

A company or group's financial distress causes significant turmoil for its owners, directors, managers, employees and often its suppliers and other creditors. For directors in particular, there are significant responsibilities and potential personal liabilities associated with the management of a company where its business is in financial distress.

In Short

The Situation: The COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on businesses across various sectors in Italy.

The Action: Further to the Law Decree No. 18 of March 17, 2020 (the "Cura Italia Decree"), the Italian Government recently enacted the Law Decree No. 23 of April 8, 2020 (the "Liquidity Decree"), implementing a number of additional measures aimed at mitigating the adverse economic impact of COVID-19.

In Short

The Situation: The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has required governments around the world to provide temporary relief to companies and directors experiencing distress as a consequence of the pandemic.

The Situation: In the past few weeks, due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 crisis on non-essential businesses forced to close and terminate employees after filing for chapter 11 protection, bankruptcy courts have been confronted with requests by debtors to temporarily suspend their bankruptcy cases using the courts' equitable powers and a seldom-used provision of the Bankruptcy Code: 11 U.S.C. § 305(a).

In In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 883, 200 L. Ed. 2d 183 (2018), its 2016 decision that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodities, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On July 16, 2014, the Uniform Law Commission (the "Commission") approved a series of amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the "UFTA"), which at that time was in force in 43 states (all states except Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia).

In This Issue:

U.S. Supreme Court: Creditors May Immediately Appeal Denials of Automatic-Stay Relief

Op 17 maart jl. nam de regering uitzonderlijke maatregelen om de economische gevolgen van de corona uitbraak het hoofd te bieden. Met noodmaatregelen probeert de regering ondernemingen overeind te houden. Het blijft onzeker of die maatregelen voldoende financiële ruimte geven om de salarissen en schuldeisers (op termijn) te betalen. We bespreken daarom in deze bijdrage een uiterste redmiddel: de wettelijke procedure van surseance van betaling.

Surseance van betaling (uitstel van betaling)

The Act on the confirmation of private plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord or WHOA) was submitted to the Dutch parliament last year and, once adopted, introduces a framework under which tailor-made (financial) restructuring plans can be implemented outside formal insolvency proceedings.

The WHOA combines elements of the English Scheme of Arrangements, US Chapter 11 and the EU Restructuring Directive (EU 2019/1023).

The following is an overview of the WHOA's most important features.

The procedure