Real estate lenders and borrowers everywhere are trying to figure out what to do with properties that are either sitting vacant or underperforming pre-pandemic expectations. In New York, a number of mezzanine foreclosures have been pursued with varying degrees of success when challenged in court. Some lenders have been shopping their loans, mostly at discounts to par that are not large enough to create substantial deal flow in the marketplace.

The Bottom Line

In the latest decision arising out of long-running disputes over confirmation of the Tribune Company’s Chapter 11 plan, the Third Circuit issued important new guidance concerning the enforceability of subordination agreements in cramdown plans, holding (1) that subordination agreements “need not be strictly enforced” in such plans, and (2) that the relevant comparison, for determining unfair discrimination, need not always be a comparison between the recovery of the preferred class and the dissenting class, but may sometimes entail a comparison between the dissenting class’s desired and act

The Bottom Line

The Third Circuit, in Artesanias Hacienda Real S.A. de C.V. v. N. Mill Capital, LLC (In re Wilton Armetale, Inc.), 968 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2020), issued a decision with potential implications for creditors who wish to pursue causes of action after a bankruptcy trustee refuses to act on such claims. The Third Circuit held that if a bankruptcy trustee clearly abandons a cause of action, the right of creditors to pursue that cause of action “spring[s] back to life.”

What Happened?

The Ninth Circuit, in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2020), issued a significant decision on the issue of whether nonconsensual third-party releases are ever permitted in Chapter 11 plans. Distinguishing its prior decisions on the topic, the Ninth Circuit permitted a nonconsensual third-party release that was limited to the exculpation of participants in the reorganization from claims based on actions taken during the case.

Statutory Background

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

Recently, in In re Dura Automotive Systems, No. 19-12378 (Bankr. D. Del. June 9, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that granting the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the Committee) derivative standing on behalf of the debtors – a Delaware limited liability company – was precluded by the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the Delaware LLC Act).

What Happened?

受疫情影响，英国越来越多的企业出现运营困难。虽然英国政府出台了多种补救措施，但仍会有很多企业将不可避免地面临破产。对因各种原因可能受到英国公司破产影响的中国公司或个人，本文将从英国破产法角度简要介绍英国公司破产程序、这些程序对于公司和普通债权人的保护，以及担任破产公司董事需要关注的问题。

一. 公司什么时候算破产？

英国的破产法规定主要来源于《1986年破产法》（Insolvency Act 1986）和《1986年破产规则》（Insolvency Rules 1986）。虽然《1986年破产法》没有给破产以明确的定义，但采用了"无力偿还债务"的概念。因此，在英国公司破产一般包含两种情况：一是公司没办法支付债务（现金流量破产 – Cash-flow insolvency），二是公司负债大于资产（资产负债表破产- Balance-sheet insolvency）。

现金流量破产一般表现为公司没办法支付其现有的债务。值得注意的是，即使公司可以支付现有债务，但如果没办法支付其在不远的未来产生的债务也将被视为破产。

Historically, the interests of landlords whose commercial real estate is occupied by debtors in Chapter 11 proceedings have been generally well protected. Indeed, Section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code requires the debtor to timely perform all of its post-petition obligations under its nonresidential leases of real property — most important among those, rent.