With the fourth law on COVID-19, the Austrian legislator has suspended the obligation of an overindebted debtor to file for insolvency until 30 June 2020, irrespective of the cause of the over-indebtedness. Some other countries in the CEE region have also adopted measures to combat the consequences of COVID-19 as detailed in the following overview:

Die COVID-19-Pandemie und deren wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen führten bisher zu insgesamt fünf umfassenden COVID-19 Gesetzespaketen. Darunter finden sich ua Änderungen im Insolvenz-, Anfechtungs- und Eigenkapitalersatzrecht, mit denen die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie adressiert werden sollen. Ein erster Schritt in die richtige Richtung, weitere insolvenzrechtliche Anpassungen werden aber folgen müssen. Im Folgenden wird ein Überblick über die wesentlichen insolvenzrechtlichen Änderungen gegeben.

Verlängerte Insolvenzantragsfrist

Bulgaria has been in a state of emergency since 13 March due to the COVID-19 outbreak. On 23 March the Parliament voted on a special State of Emergency Act (COVID-19 Act) which suspended all court, arbitration and enforcement terms and proceedings during the state of emergency, currently in force until 13 April.

On 14 March 2020, the Croatian Ministry of Justice issued recommendations to prevent the transmission of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and control the pandemic ("Measures"). The Measures are applicable until 1 April 2020. The Measures advise temporary adjustments to legal requirements in civil, insolvency and criminal procedure law to avoid hardship that would otherwise arise as a result of the coronavirus crisis.

With the aim of further mitigating the negative effects of the crisis on companies and private individuals, the Measures advise the following:

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).

Lender repossesses the equipment of its business borrower after it defaults on its secured loan agreement. Because borrower needs the equipment to run its business, it then files a Chapter 11 petition and promptly asks lender to return the equipment. Lender refuses because the equipment secures the defaulted loan. Depending on where the debtor sought bankruptcy relief (e.g., New York or New Jersey), lender may be subject to sanctions for holding on to the equipment. 

A bankruptcy trustee may sell “avoidance powers to a self-interested party that will abandon those claims, so long as the overall value obtained for the transfer is appropriate,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 15, 2020. Silverman v. Birdsell, 2020 WL 236777, *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2020).

A secured lender’s “mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy–repossession] does not violate” the automatic stay provision [§ 362(a)(3)] of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, *4 (Jan. 14,2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved “a split” in the Circuits. Id., at *2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit.

“[A] secured creditor [has no] affirmative obligation under the automatic stay to return a debtor’s [repossessed] collateral to the bankruptcy estate immediately upon notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on Oct. 28, 2019. In re Denby-Peterson, 2019 WL 5538570, 1 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2019). Affirming the lower courts, the Third Circuit joined “the minority of our sister courts — the Tenth and D.C. Circuits” with its holding.