In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.
Background
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).
Background
Key Takeaways
A year ago, many predicted that the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines and their impact on the economy would result in a deluge of bankruptcy filings that could rival the Great Recession of 2008-2009. However, as we approach the one-year anniversary of former President Trump declaring the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus a national emergency, that prediction has not come to pass.
Key Takeaways
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, __ U.S. __, 2021 WL 125106 (Jan. 14, 2021), which addresses issues related to the automatic stay and a creditor’s ability to retain property of a debtor’s estate upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case. The Fulton decision is a consolidation of four similar cases where the City of Chicago impounded debtor cars pre-petition in response to unpaid traffic tickets and fines. After filing for bankruptcy, each debtor requested that the City return the respective vehicles.
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the election of a tenant, under Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code, to remain in possession of real property governed by a rejected lease causes a third-party guaranty on another rejected agreement to remain in effect, to the extent such agreement and the lease are part of an integrated transaction.
A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.
A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.