While long-term care facilities have generally been kept afloat over the last year through various stimulus packages and lenders willing to work through defaults given the pandemic, some may face financial trouble in the near future due to litigation arising from deaths related to COVID-19.

We discussed in the March 2020 edition of the Texas Bar Journal¹ the bankruptcy court ruling by Judge Craig A. Gargotta of San Antonio in In Re First River Energy LLC that oil and gas producers in Texas do not hold perfected security interests in oil and gas well proceeds, notwithstanding the Texas Legislature’s efforts to protect producers and royalty owners following the downturn in the 1980s. The Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed Judge Gargotta’s decision.

This article sets out some reflections on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 from July 2020 which clarifies the scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ rule. The first instance judgment raised some comment-worthy issues regarding the economic torts which were not the subject of any appeal.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”), which came into force on 26 June 2020, introduced a series of new “debtor friendly” procedures and measures to give companies the breathing space and tools required to maximize their chance of survival. The main insolvency related reforms in CIGA (which incorporates both permanent and temporary changes to the UK’s laws) include:

1. New moratorium to give companies breathing space from their creditors

2. Prohibition on termination of contracts for the supply of goods and services by reason of insolvency

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”), whose jurisdiction includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, recently held that, under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor’s pre-petition and certain post-petition voluntary retirement contributions are excludable from the debtor’s disposable income, which is used to satisfy a debtor’s obligations to its unsecured creditors.

In complex long-term charters for vessels or finance leases in respect of vessels under the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) and its Article 2A (governing commercial matters relating to finance leases) and under other similar law, a charterer’s or lessor’s damages under a charter or lease— both generally upon a payment default or in the event of a casualty—are often liquidated in stipulated loss value (“SLV”) provisions. These provisions ensure that the lessor/charterer gets the benefit of its bargain.

The Insolvency Working Group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”⁾¹ has been busy this past year, working on three new model laws and developing work on at least two possible future projects.2 The Insolvency Working Group is responsible for drafting the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the “CBI Model Law”) in 1997, which has since been adopted in 46 countries and is under consideration in several others. In 2005, the United States adopted the CBI Model Law as Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 

The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of debtors to use contract rejection in bankruptcy to shed unwanted trademark licensees. But the Court acknowledged that the result could change if the trademark licensing agreement had different termination rights. Going forward, parties entering into trademark licensing agreements will need to consider this decision carefully as they negotiate termination rights in the event of a bankruptcy by the licensor.

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court settled a circuit split concerning whether a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code “deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” In a decision written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that while a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license results in a pre-petition breach, it does not constitute a rescission of the contract, and thus the licensee may retain the rights granted to it under the license.

With the May 1 order, the Commission reaffirms its view that it has concurrent jurisdiction over debtors’ efforts to reject their FERC-jurisdictional contracts in bankruptcy. Further developments in judicial proceedings in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are expected.