To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The ability of a creditor to exercise its contractual, common law or statutory rights under non-bankruptcy law to set off amounts owed to a debtor in bankruptcy against the debtor s obligations to the creditor gives offsetting creditors an important advantage. Unlike many other creditors, creditors with setoff rights can receive preferential treatment in the form of full payment on their claims up to the amount of the setoff. However, a limitation on the exercise of setoff rights in bankruptcy is the Bankruptcy Code s requirement that the debts involved must be mutual, a concept that is not well understood and sometimes disputed in the courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently addressed the meaning of mutuality in this context as a matter of first impression. In
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On March 19, in a matter of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) held that triangular setoff is not permissible in bankruptcy due to Bankruptcy Code Section 553(a) s mutuality requirement, and that parties cannot evade that requirement by contracting around it.
See In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 990 F.3d 748 (3d Cir. 2021).
McKesson Corporation, Inc. (McKesson) and Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (Orexigen) were parties to a distribution agreement, where Orexigen would sell McKesson the drug Contrave, and McKesson would, in turn, sell the drug to pharmacies. The distribution agreement also had a provision (Setoff Provision) that stated McKesson could reduce any amounts it owed to Orexigen by any amount that Orexigen owed to McKesson or any of its subsidiaries. Separately, Orexigen and McKesson Patient Relationship Solutions (MPRS), a McKesson subsidiary, entered into a services agreement whereby
TAKEAWAYS
Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code requires “strict bilateral mutuality.”
Thus, a creditor cannot set off an obligation it owes to a bankrupt debtor against an obligation that the debtor owes to the creditor’s affiliate (a so-called triangular setoff).
Creditors cannot simply contract around section 553’s mutuality requirement it is a hard and fast prerequisite to any setoff effectuated in bankruptcy.
The Third Circuit’s recent decision in
In re Orexigen Therapeutics Inc., 990 F.3d 748 (3d Cir. 2021) holds that section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code, which governs creditor setoffs, requires “strict bilateral mutuality.” As a result, notwithstanding the parties’ contract, a creditor cannot set off an obligation it owes to a debtor in bankruptcy against an obligation that the debtor owes to the creditor’s affiliate (a so-called triangular setoff.)
In a March 19, 2021, decision in
., the Third Circuit joined the Second, Fifth and Seventh Circuits, prohibiting triangular setoff in a bankruptcy proceeding. A triangular setoff occurs when Party A attempts to set off a debt owed by it to Party B against a debt owed by Party B to Party C. This raises practical concerns for parties that have multiple contracts with a third party, particularly if affiliates or subsidiaries are parties to some of those contracts.
Background
In July 2016, Orexigen entered into a “Services Agreement” with McKesson Patient Relationship Solutions (MPRS), a wholly owned subsidiary of McKesson Corporation, Inc. The agreement concerned a loyalty rebate program, under which MPRS advanced funds to pharmacies to finance discounts and then billed Orexigen for reimbursement, creating an account payable by Orexigen to MPRS. Separately, Orexigen and McKesson were parties to a “Distribution Agreement,” under which, McKesson purchased drugs manufactured by
Introduction
In a recent decision,
In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 8075 (3d Cir. Mar. 19, 2021), the Third Circuit held that triangular setoff arrangements are unenforceable under section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code. A triangular setoff arrangement arises when one party to a contract attempts to not only set off debts owed to another (debtor), but also debts owed by nonparty affiliates of such counterparty. For instance, if A and B are parties to a contract, under a triangular setoff arrangement A may be able to reduce its outstanding liabilities owed to B by setting off–or canceling–amounts owed to A by C, who is an affiliate of B but not a party to the contract between A and B. Once a party to a contract files for bankruptcy protection, section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code governs and places, among others, a “mutuality” requirement on the parties to a contract, which in turn limits nonbankruptcy setoff rights, even in instances where p