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.

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:

 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.

Over the summer, we wrote about why health care companies may want to consider buying assets out of bankruptcy, taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (a “363 Sale”). We are back with our second post, to provide more detail to the process and discuss some pros and cons of 363 Sales.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed that bankruptcy plans need not always recognize subordination agreements among creditors.

This two-part blog series discusses why buyers looking to make strategic purchases in the health care industry might want to take advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (363 Sale) and the pros and cons of buying assets out of bankruptcy through a 363 Sale.

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。