In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).

Background

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Late in the evening on Feb. 23, 2021, the department store chain Belk Inc. and 17 affiliates filed prepackaged bankruptcy cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. In addition to filing first-day motions, Belk also filed its disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, which already had been solicited and accepted by the vast majority of those entitled to vote.

The COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States with force in March 2020. As the virus rapidly spread, the federal government responded with temporary changes to the Bankruptcy Code through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The CARES Act was one of the first laws enacted in an attempt to prevent what many expected would be a tsunami of bankruptcy petition filings in the wake of the zero-revenue environment created by statewide shutdowns during the first and second quarters of 2020.

In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. provides substantial support for the allowance of make-whole amounts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(2) and that such are neither interest, unmatured interest nor the economic equivalent of unmatured interest. In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., No. 16-03272, 2020 WL 6276712, *3-*4 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2020). The case also clarifies that bankruptcy courts may not permit a solvent debtor to ignore its contractual obligations to unimpaired classes of unsecured creditors.

Case Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the election of a tenant, under Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code, to remain in possession of real property governed by a rejected lease causes a third-party guaranty on another rejected agreement to remain in effect, to the extent such agreement and the lease are part of an integrated transaction.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

On Oct. 28, 2020, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas delivered a key ruling affecting: (1) purchase and sale agreements for produced gas and severed minerals; and (2) agreements with “exclusive remedy” provisions and liquidated damage clauses. See Mem. Op., In re: Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al., Cause No. 20-33233 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2020).