In de uitspraak van Rechtbank Rotterdam van 3 maart 2021 is door verzoekster aan de rechtbank de vraag voorgelegd, of onderscheid in behandeling van de concurrente crediteuren (een weigeringsgrond oplevert die) aan homologatie van een akkoord in de weg zou staan.
WHOA: Alle in het 1e kwartaal van 2021 gepubliceerde rechterlijke uitspraken gebundeld Op 1 januari 2021 is de Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord (“WHOA”) in werking getreden. Het eerste kwartaal na inwerkingtreding zijn 17 rechterlijke uitspraken met betrekking tot de WHOA gepubliceerd. Het insolventieteam van Ploum bestaande uit Vincent Terlouw, Suzanne van Aalst en Boaz van Honk houdt de ontwikkelingen nauwlettend in de gaten. In deze door Suzanne van Aalst opgestelde bijdrage zal de essentie van deze uitspraken worden behandeld.
In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.
Background
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
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.