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.
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.
There were big changes in 2020 in the world of restructuring and insolvency legislation with the introduction of two new restructuring tools: the Moratorium and the Restructuring Plan, as well as the reintroduction of Crown preference.
On December 1, 2020, certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure take effect. The amendments largely modify rules governing bankruptcy appeals, but also impact Rules 2002 and 2004. The changes are as follows:
The COVID-19 pandemic together with Brexit have meant many commercial relationships have had to stop or risk having to do so in the future. Are you ready to deal with what happens if any of your key contracts terminate?
No contract is 100% ‘Brexit-proof’. The current uncertainty about whether there will or won’t be a trade deal with the EU makes it unclear what contracts will be profitable and which won’t in 2021. For many businesses, some of their contractual relationships may well become untenable in the period after 11pm on 31 December 2020.
New legislation has come into effect which extends the applicability of certain temporary provisions under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”). But what does this mean for businesses?
In several ways, businesses can continue to make use of the breathing space provisions brought in by CIGA to support their day-to-day work in keeping their companies afloat during the pandemic.
In a decision published October 19, 2020, Judge Frank J. Bailey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts found that an Indian tribe was not subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.