As a result of the economic fallout of COVID-19, more bankruptcies are on the horizon, especially as government aid programs expire and involuntary or voluntary moratoriums on creditor action come to an end. [1] Creditors should be aware and prepared to avoid potential claims for alleged violation of the discharge injunction under the Bankruptcy Code and related orders.

With the football transfer window having closed on another round of multimillion-pound transfers, the perception continues that football is a sport awash with cash. However, as football plays on behind closed doors, one need not look too far beneath the surface to uncover clubs across the country struggling to cope with the financial impact of COVID-19.

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 1, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued Isaiah v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a precedential opinion that draws sharp limits on court-appointed receivers’ ability to bring claims against financial institutions that provided banking services to customers later discovered to be running a Ponzi scheme.

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied “Colorado law to resolve” the question of “who owns the federal tax refund.” Id., at *2.

Recent emergency motions from Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Modell’s) and Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (“Pier 1”) to put their chapter 11 cases on ice may signal a growing trend. As the economic consequences of efforts to contain and respond to COVID-19 infections render deal-making difficult or impossible, what were the best-laid plans a few weeks ago often no longer make sense.

To assist businesses dealing with the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, on March 28, 2020, the UK government followed in the footsteps of countries including Spain, Germany and Australia and announced certain changes to UK insolvency law.

This article summarises the key changes the UK government is proposing to existing insolvency laws, and considers the key restructuring tools available to assist companies during this unprecedented and challenging time.

Wrongful Trading Suspension

Barely a month after Bankruptcy Code amendments providing a cheaper, more efficient path to chapter 11 relief for small businesses took effect under the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), Congress has nearly tripled the debt-eligibility threshold from roughly $2.7 to $7.5 million in response to economic fallout from the COVID-19 shutdown.

A bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction was “not a final and immediately appealable order,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Dec. 10, 2019. In re Alcor Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 6716420, 4 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2019). The court declined to “exercise [its] discretion” under 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3) to hear the interlocutory appeal. Id., citing 16 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3926.1 (3d ed. 2017) (“There is no provision for appeal as of right from an injunction order of a bankruptcy judge to the district court.”).

A creditor’s “later-in-time reclamation demand is ‘subject to’ [a lender’s] prior rights as a secured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020. In re HHGregg, Inc., 2020 WL 628268 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020). And “[w]hen a lender insists on collateral, it expects the collateral to be worth something,” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020, when rejecting a guarantor’s “novel reading” of his security agreement. In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, 2020 WL 628542 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020).