The decision confirms that company voluntary arrangements remain a flexible tool for restructuring leasehold portfolios.

• No rigid test exists for “basic fairness” that requires a landlord to receive at least market rent, or that contractual rent should be interfered with to the minimum extent necessary.

• If a landlord is entitled to terminate the lease and receive a better outcome than in the alternative, any automatic unfairness from changes to the terms of the lease is negated.

• Whether a CVA is unfairly prejudicial depends on all the circumstances of the case.

Over the past year, the Covid-19 pandemic upended many industries. While the construction industry has largely been able to operate throughout the pandemic, albeit with increased and ever-changing restrictions on jobsites, one consequence of these disruptions may be an increase in construction-related bankruptcy filings. Already in 2021, there have been over 70 construction-related bankruptcy filings across the country. For many property owners and real estate developers, these filings create a nightmare scenario where work may slow or even stop entirely.

A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York highlights directors’ fiduciary duty to evaluate all aspects of multi-stage transactions, including those portions to be effectuated post-closing by successor directors.

Until recently, courts in the Ninth Circuit have generally followed the minority view that non-debtor releases in a bankruptcy plan are prohibited by Bankruptcy Code Section 524(e), which provides that the “discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity on, or the property of any other entity for, such debt.” In the summer of 2020, the Ninth Circuit hinted that its prohibition against non-debtor releases was not absolute, when the court issued its decision in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.

Landmark decision holds that the SFO does not have the power to procure documents from foreign companies outside the jurisdiction.

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat mit Urteil vom 18. November 2020 (IV ZR 217/19) entschieden, dass Ansprüche gegen GmbH-Geschäftsführer auf Ersatz von Zahlungen, die nach Insolvenzreife vorgenommen wurden, vom Versicherungsschutz der D&O-Versicherung umfasst sind. Mehrere Oberlandesgerichte hatten dies zuletzt noch anders beurteilt. In der Praxis hatte dies zu einer erheblichen Unsicherheit geführt, nicht zuletzt mit Blick auf die infolge der COVID-19-Pandemie vorübergehend geänderten Insolvenzantragspflichten.

Hintergrund der Entscheidung

As discussed in previousposts, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was signed into law on December 27, 2020, largely to address the harsh economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Part 2: Amendments Affecting Mortgage Lenders and Landlords

As discussed in a previous post, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”), which was enacted on December 27, 2020 in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, amended numerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. This post discusses amendments specifically affecting landlords.

On December 27, 2020, in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to supplement the CARES Act enacted in March 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was enacted. In addition to providing $900 billion in pandemic relief, the Act benefits both debtors and creditors by temporarily modifying the following sections of the Bankruptcy Code, which may be of particular interest to creditors:

If a creditor is holding property of a party that files bankruptcy, is it “exercising control over” such property (and violating the automatic stay) by refusing the debtor’s turnover demands? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is no – instead, the stay under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code only applies to affirmative acts that disturb the status quo as of the filing date. In other words, the mere retention of property of a debtor after the filing of a bankruptcy case does not violate the automatic stay.