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.

This article sets out some reflections on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 from July 2020 which clarifies the scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ rule. The first instance judgment raised some comment-worthy issues regarding the economic torts which were not the subject of any appeal.

On 20 January 2021, the UK High Court approved the convening of a single scheme meeting for certain aircraft lessors of MAB Leasing Limited (MABL) in relation its proposed UK scheme of arrangement. This is an important step towards the implementation of a wider restructuring for the Malaysia Airlines group, but may also have wider implications on the restructuring options available not only to airlines, but also to businesses with other leased assets, including real estate.

Lessors form a single class

Automatic Stay Not Violated by Retention of Property Seized Before Filing

The United States Supreme Court recently held that 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), a provision of the automatic stay of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, does not require creditors to take affirmative steps to return property that was seized before the filing of a debtor’s bankruptcy petition. City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, ____ U.S. ____ (Jan. 14, 2021).

On January 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss filed by a consumer reporting agency in Ewert v. FD Holdings, LLC d/b/a Factual Data, 2021 WL 168967 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 19, 2021). The plaintiff, Lance M. Ewert, filed a bankruptcy petition in 2017, identifying a Chase credit card account as a disputed debt. The credit card debt was ultimately discharged in the bankruptcy case.

In 2019, we began following a Circuit split regarding a secured creditor’s obligation to return collateral that it lawfully repossessed pre-petition after receiving notice of a debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

In January 2020, we analyzed a split among the Circuit Courts regarding whether a non-debtor holding a debtor’s property on the petition date has an affirmative obligation under section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code to return that property to the debtor immediately following the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

If a creditor is holding property of a party that files bankruptcy, is it “exercising control over” such property (and violating the automatic stay) by refusing the debtor’s turnover demands? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is no – instead, the stay under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code only applies to affirmative acts that disturb the status quo as of the filing date. In other words, the mere retention of property of a debtor after the filing of a bankruptcy case does not violate the automatic stay.

Key Contacts:

On 18 January 2021, the Court of Appeal in Md Isa Bujang v CIMB Bank Berhad dismissed a bankrupt’s appeal against a High Court decision that struck out his claim for, inter alia, damages of RM22,445,601.64 against CIMB Bank Berhad for delay in the auction of his property charged to the Bank. The Bank was represented by our Partner, Claudia Cheah and Senior Associate, Aufa Radzi.

Key points 

The High Court has dismissed a strike out application in respect of a claim brought under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in respect of an alleged transaction defrauding creditors, holding that it is not necessary to prove a freestanding connection between the defendant and England, separate from the litigation itself, in order to obtain relief: Suppipat v Narongdej [2020] EWHC 3191 (Comm).