In a recent opinion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a seller licensed under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) could not entirely setoff payables owed to a bankrupt PACA merchant against receivables owed by the debtor. The ruling is a reminder to PACA-regulated parties that otherwise common operational practices such as setoffs may not be recognized and enforceable in bankruptcy or in PACA-regulated transactions.

In its ruling in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Sweeney (In re Centaur, LLC), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware addressed the Supreme Court’s recent clarification of the scope of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e)’s “safe harbor” provision, affirming a more narrow interpretation of Section 546(e).

Introduction

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to address “[w]hether, under §365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a license agreement—which ‘constitutes a breach of such contract,’ 11 U.S.C. §365(g)—terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” The appeal arises from a First Circuit decision, Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v.

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently enjoined a Hong Kong-based investor from exercising its shareholder purchase rights in an Asian joint venture.[1] The Bankruptcy Court’s order also prevents the investor from proceeding with litigation to enforce its rights in a Hong Kong court. Neither of the joint venture partners, or the joint venture itself, are debtors in a domestic or foreign insolvency proceeding. Nevertheless, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that injunctive relief was warranted because the investor’s actions were disrupting a sale process for the U.S.

Introduction Following recent proposed changes to UK restructuring and insolvency law, a new European Union (“EU”) directive concerning restructuring within EU Member States proposed by the European Commission (“Commission”) has reached an advanced stage.

On 21 September 2018, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal delivered the eagerly anticipated decision in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)1. The appeal decision has come down on the side of what many considered to be the correct position for set off compared to the findings in the first Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)2 case.

On 1 July 2018, the stay on ipso facto clauses introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Act) came into effect and will apply to contracts entered into on or after that date. The Act, left a number of issues up in the air which were expected to be filled by regulations. Those regulations, and a declaration, were released in late June 2018, providing little time for contracting parties, and their advisors, to understand how the new laws would impact them before their commencement.

The Stay

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, an event considered by many to mark the beginning of the credit crisis of 2008–2009 and the unprecedented public policy responses that followed. Much has been written about the multiple contributing factors to the crisis, ranging from predatory lending to Federal Reserve interest rate policy.

The UK government announced on 26 August 2018 that it will legislate to change aspects of the UK restructuring and insolvency systems. The reforms are a response to recent high-profile domestic corporate insolvencies and the various issues highlighted in those matters.