On April 19, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from the Second Circuit’s decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation (“Tribune II”),[1] leaving intact the Second Circuit’s decision upholding the safe harbor defense to avoidance actions und
“The discharge of claims in bankruptcy applies with no less force to claims that are meritorious, sympathetic, or diligently pursued. Though the result may chafe one’s innate sense of fairness, not all unfairness represents a violation of due process.”
On March 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous decision[1] affirming that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and, therefore, that triangular setoffs are not permissible in bankruptcy.
Unless the Article 50 period is extended yet again, the UK is currently set to leave the EU on 31 October 2019 at 11pm GMT. However, if the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified, the impact of Brexit will, for most purposes, be postponed due to the transition period. This transition period is currently set to end on 31 December 2020. The Withdrawal Agreement provides that during transition, the UK would continue to be treated as if it were still an EU member for the purposes of a range of directly application EU legislation which is core to the smooth running of financial transactions.
This page was updated on 8 January 2021.
From 1 December 2020 new changes to the priority rules in insolvency will have a real impact on the recoveries achieved by secured creditors on the insolvency of a debtor. These new rules give HMRC priority above floating charge holders and ordinary unsecured creditors in relation to tax collected by an insolvent company from third parties, such as VAT, PAYE income tax and NICs.
Our regular round-up of recent developments and topics for your radar, news on training and networking events for in-house counsel, and an update on our legal tech initiatives.
HIGHLIGHTS
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unparalleled disruption to the judiciary, which has been presented with logistical hurdles as well as acute legal issues to tackle.
This article summarises some notable recent caselaw concerning the fallout from the pandemic. Broadly, the judiciary has adopted a strict but fair approach when parties have sought leniency due to the impact of COVID-19. Courts have not looked kindly on those who are seen to be unfairly capitalising on the disruption but, where merited, parties have been granted clemency.
In a decision arising out of Tribune’s 2008 bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a decision affirming confirmation of the media conglomerate’s chapter 11 plan over objections raised by senior noteholders who contended that the plan violated their rights under the Bankruptcy Code by not according them the full benefit of their prepetition subordination agreements with other creditors.