On March 27, 2020 both chambers of the German parliament passed emergency legislation to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic encompassing, inter alia, a suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency, corresponding limitations of the management’s and lenders’ liability and introduction of a moratorium on certain contractual obligations.

On December 20, 2019, the honorable Marvin Isgur, judge of the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court, issued an opinion holding that Alta Mesa Holdings (“Alta Mesa”), an upstream oil and gas producer with operations based in the STACK formation, could not, under Oklahoma law, reject certain gathering agreements in its bankruptcy case.1 The holding in Alta Mesa follows a similar outcome issued less than three months earlier in In re Badlands Energy, Inc.,2 a case decided by a Colorado bankruptcy court applying Utah law.

On July 24, 2019, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued the Consultation Paper on the Proposed Framework for Variable Capital Companies Part 3 (the Consultation Paper), which covers the proposed subsidiary legislation relating to the insolvency and winding up of a v

On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.

By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing circuit split regarding the impact of bankruptcy filings on trademark licenses. Until May 20th, brand owners in some jurisdictions could use bankruptcy protections to terminate the rights of third parties to use its licensed trademarks. Now, it is clear that a bankrupt licensor cannot rescind trademark license rights. Licensees can continue to do whatever their trademark licenses authorize, even if the licensor has filed for bankruptcy.

Despite recent decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Momentive) and the Fifth Circuit (Ultra) questioning the enforceability of make-whole provisions in bankruptcy, on March 18, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York determined in 1141 Realty that the make-whole provision contained in a loan agreement was enforceable notwithstanding acceleration of the loan by the secured lender.

Background on Enforceability of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the BIA prevailed over a conflicting provision in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor is not impaired for the purpose of voting on a plan if it is the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to plan treatment) that impairs a creditor’s claim. The court further held that a make-whole premium is a claim for unmatured interest which is not an allowable claim under Bankruptcy Code, absent application of the “solvent-debtor” exception which may or not apply—the issue was remanded to the bankruptcy court for decision.

On January 15th, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that the end user of an electricity forward contact was not entitled to the benefits of the safe harbor provisions under Section 556 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 556 allows a “forward contract merchant” to terminate a forward contract post-petition based on an ipso facto clause in the contract and exempts such actions from the automatic stay.

The Eleventh Circuit recently found in favor of Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. by rejecting its own earlier dicta and explicitly expanding the preference payment defense known as “new value.” This provides additional protection for companies doing business with a debtor in the 90 days prior to bankruptcy.

THE SCOOP: BRUNO’S V. BLUE BELL