A lender’s state law tort claims against “non-debtor third-parties for tortious interference with a contract” were “not preempted” by “federal bankruptcy law,” held the New York Court of Appeals on Nov. 24, 2020. Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky, 2020 WL 6875979, *1 (N.Y. Ct. Appeals, Nov. 24, 2020) (4-3). In a split opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of a lender’s complaint against the debtors’ non-debtor insiders. The lender will still have to prove its case at trial.

The Asserted Claims

The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements—through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated—was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.

The past year has seen some important judgments and hearings (with judgment awaited at the time of writing) on several subjects, some of which may shape the future of UK litigation for years to come. Litigants and litigators have also spent a good part of the year getting used to a new way of conducting litigation—remotely and fully electronically. Starting with contract law, while there has been little by way of Supreme Court guidance on the subject, the lower courts continue to issue interesting judgments.

On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.

Financial Restructuring & Insolvency/Finance A New Restructuring Plan

16 SEPTEMBER 2020

IN THIS ISSUE:

Introduction Process for Implementing a Plan Availability of the Plan Disenfranchisement of Creditors or Members Numerosity Cross-class Cram Down Moratorium Veto Pensions Opinion

GOVERNANCE & SECURITIES LAW FOCUS

JULY 2020/LATIN AMERICA EDITION

Below is a summary of the main developments in U.S., EU, and U.K. corporate governance and securities law since our last update in May 2020.

See our page dedicated to the latest financial regulatory developments.

IN THIS ISSUE

GOVERNANCE & SECURITIES LAW FOCUS

JULY 2020/EUROPE EDITION

Below is a summary of the main developments in U.S., EU, U.K. and Italian corporate governance and securities law since our last update in April 2020.

See our page dedicated to the latest financial regulatory developments.

IN THIS ISSUE

UK CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND GOVERNANCE ACT 2020

9 JULY 2020

IN THIS ISSUE:

Permanent Insolvency Changes A New Standalone Moratorium A New Restructuring Plan Ipso Facto Termination Clauses

Temporary Insolvency Changes Modification of Wrongful Trading Liability Statutory Demands Winding Up Petitions Winding Up Orders

Further Changes

Governance Changes Company Meetings Company Filings

Final Thoughts

In a decision of first impression entered on June 3, 2020, a Chicago bankruptcy court (“Court”) held that a restaurant tenant was excused from paying a significant portion of its rent under the force majeure provisions of its lease because of the governor’s executive order prohibiting in-house dining during the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] This decision is highly significant for landlords and tenants whose ability to service their clients has similarly been restricted by government orders.

On June 2, 2020, Judge Donald R. Cassling of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a state executive order suspending dine-in services to address the COVID-19 pandemic (the “Executive Order”) constituted a force majeure event that partially excused performance under the applicable lease agreement. In re Hitz Restaurant Group, No. 20-B-05012, 2020 WL 2924523 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 2, 2020).