In Dr. Thomas Markusic et al. v. Michael Blum et al. memorandum opinion 200818, the Delaware Chancery Court (the “Court”) declined to extend the Gentile doctrine. In so doing, the Court held that the counterclaims attempting to rely on it had to be dismissed.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Companies should anticipate the possibility that they will find themselves in a situation where a vendor, customer, or other contract counterparty commences a bankruptcy case pursuant to Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused economic stress to a wide variety of business sectors, and it has underscored the risk that a contract counterparty may file for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy effect on vendor and supply contracts

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Companies should anticipate the possibility that they will find themselves in a situation where a vendor, customer, or other contract counterparty commences a bankruptcy case pursuant to Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused economic stress to a wide variety of business sectors, and it has underscored the risk that a contract counterparty may file for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy effect on vendor and supply contracts

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas recently clarified the administrative expense standard applicable to indenture trustees by holding that they can recover fees and expenses as administrative expenses only when they make a “substantial contribution.” This standard requires a greater showing than “benefit to the estate,” which is the general administrative expense standard. In re Sanchez Energy Corp., No. 19-34508 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2021).

Background

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.

Background

In a first, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Arcapita Bank case had to decide whether Shari’a compliant investment agreements, providing for Murabaha and Wakala transactions, qualify for the safe harbor protections provided in the bankruptcy code for securities contracts, forwards and swaps. The court held that they do not. Since the opinion runs about 100 pages long, we attempt to distill some very basic facts concerning Shari’a compliant transactions and point to important holdings made by the court.

Shari’a Compliant Transactions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The UK government has extended its suspension of various rules and procedures affecting distressed businesses as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, with the UK lockdown easing on a rolling basis up to 21 June 2021, these may be the last of the blanket extensions across all of these areas. Expect the gradual reintroduction of some of the rules and procedures from 1 July onwards.

The Extensions to the End of June 2021

On March 27, 2021, President Biden signed into law the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act (the Extension Act). The Extension Act temporarily extends certain COVID-19 bankruptcy relief provisions enacted as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), which were further amended and/or extended as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (the CAA). Certain of the amendments included in the CAA and the Extension Act are highlighted below:

Debtors and Paycheck Protection Program Loans