The appointment of joint liquidators can be a useful tool in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly when assets are located in a number of jurisdictions. However, courts must ensure that a joint liquidator appointment does not lead to conflicting duties based on the respective laws in each jurisdiction. This was the main issue for consideration in West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Hatfield Property Ltd, where Jack J was satisfied that the appointment of joint liquidators was necessary.

The worldwide Covid 19 pandemic has touched and affected us all in many different ways. In this blog I will look at how those of us who work in debt recovery need to take on board the impact the pandemic has had on mental health and factor that into their strategies. Mental health cannot be ignored as my partner, Cory Bebb, wrote in his recent blog

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

On 26 March 2021, amendment to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) will come into force.

The purpose of the Regulations is to extend some of the temporary measures introduced by The Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), to assist companies that are struggling to deal with the ongoing economic ramifications of pandemic-related restrictions.

These Regulations apply across the UK, including Scotland.

As the UK slowly emerges from the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has announced the further extension of the duration of certain temporary measures initially introduced pursuant to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA).

In the face of increased tenant bankruptcies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a key question arises for commercial landlords: what protection do I have from the security provided by my tenant? Tenant-supplied security under a lease can take many forms, including a third party guarantee or indemnity, prepaid rent, a cash deposit, and a letter of credit (an LOC). Crucially, certain forms of security will be more beneficial to a landlord in the face of a tenant bankruptcy, especially where the lease has been disclaimed by the tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy.

European Real Estate Finance: Market Update – Q1 2021 March 2021 Authors: Jeffrey Rubinoff, Dr. Thomas Flatten, Thierry Bosly, Hadrien Servais, Carl Hugo Parment, Fernando Navarro, Christophe Goossens, Julio Peralta, Angel Calleja, Aurélie Terlinden, Alexandra Stolt, Amitaben Patel & Brendon Vyas Further information on the response to COVID-19 can be found here, and we also have a German-language article, available here, looking at the impact on commercial leases. LIBOR Discontinuation Much has happened in the world of LIBOR Discontinuation since our last update.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. __ (2021), that a creditor in possession of a debtor's property does not violate the automatic stay, specifically section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, by retaining the property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. The Court's decision provides important guidance to bankruptcy courts, practitioners, and parties on the scope of the automatic stay's requirements.

In In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., 834 Fed. App'x 729 (3d Cir. 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down a long-awaited ruling that could have addressed, but ultimately did not address, the validity of "gifting" chapter 11 plans under which a senior creditor class gives a portion of its statutorily entitled recovery to one or more junior classes as a means of achieving consensual confirmation.

Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides special protection for tenants if a trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") rejects an unexpired lease under which the debtor was the lessor by giving the tenant the option of retaining possession of the leased premises. Although the provision clearly describes what rights a tenant has if it makes such an election, it does not unequivocally address the extent of the electing tenant's obligations under the rejected lease or any related agreements. The U.S.