Over the last 12 months, global markets have been amazingly resilient, indeed even buoyant, aided in large part by governments around Europe and the world providing seemingly unlimited funding and extensive financial stabilisation measures, such as quantitative easing.

This, coupled with protective legislation for companies to prevent insolvency filings and to ensure continued trading – for example, moratoriums, relaxations on insolvency filing obligations and restrictions on creditor actions – has given businesses significant breathing space and prevented widespread failures.

The truism that every crisis brings about opportunities also applies to mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Companies that encounter difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, or even have to file for insolvency, will have to seek equity investors or joint venture partners, or otherwise sell parts or, in worst cases, all of their business operations. This provides ample opportunities for corporate buyers to enter a new market or expand their existing business or portfolio – for an attractively low price.

Following the global implementation of stay-at-home orders in response to the novel coronavirus, businesses suffered unprecedented declines in demand. As the United States struggles to reign in the contagion, a number of household names – from Chuck E. Cheese to J.C. Penney – have filed for bankruptcy. Logically, distressed M&A transactions should rise as corporations struggle under historic levels of debt, but who is poised to take advantage of a boom in distressed M&A, what are the new realities of distressed M&A and how will these transactions proceed?

Both COVID-19 itself and the severe financial impact the virus and associated lockdown has had on the UK economy, have led not only to a large number of UK businesses re-examining the contractual terms on which they do business but also to a spike in disputes. Some matters which have been prominent in current disputes, and which are therefore key considerations for business both in looking at their existing contracts and planning for the future, include the following: • What termination provisions do they have in their contracts?

Whether or not the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on a party’s ability to perform its obligations will constitute a force majeure event enabling them to claim relief depends on the terms of the contract as applied to the precise circumstances. Where there is no force majeure clause, a party may in rare circumstances be able to invoke the doctrine of frustration.

Globalization has led to a marked increase in international components to insolvency proceedings. Cross-border issues add a new layer of complexity to what is often a situation already fraught with obstacles. Courts and practitioners alike face additional difficulties communicating with other courts, resolving issues consistently in jurisdictions with different laws and policy objectives, and enforcing rulings and implementing orders adjudicated extraterritorially.

The outbreak of coronavirus COVID-19 represents one of the most significant global public health crises in recent memory and is causing major disruption and unprecedented volatility in markets, economies and businesses. With such great social and economic uncertainty, it is inevitable that existing financial arrangements will be affected and asset-based lenders (ABLs) are not immune to this. They are, however, uniquely positioned – given the flexibility of the products they offer – to react to the ever-changing economic landscape.

As the name suggests, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 (Model Law) seeks to address complexities caused where insolvencies cross borders, while leaving substantive insolvency laws of each country largely unaltered. However, as jurisdictions continue to adopt and interpret the Model Law, inconsistencies in its application are coming to light.

This article appeared in Gulf Business on 22 June 2019

In a region where there has traditionally been an inherent stigma attached to business failure, the inevitable by-product is a decreased appetite for risk.

However, as the UAE’s economy has matured and become more global in its outlook, a more sophisticated and less risk-averse insolvency regime is required - one that can deal with volatile economic cycles and at the same time promote an entrepreneurial business environment.

Immediately following the results of the UK referendum on exiting the EU in June 2016, we wrote about the potential impact of Brexit on cross-border restructuring and insolvency work. As we identified then, the key issue in this area is the potentially significant implications of losing the reciprocal effect of the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings and the Brussels Regulation (recast). In this article we focus on the impact of the loss of recognition under the Insolvency Regulation.