WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Companies should anticipate the possibility that they will find themselves in a situation where a vendor, customer, or other contract counterparty commences a bankruptcy case pursuant to Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused economic stress to a wide variety of business sectors, and it has underscored the risk that a contract counterparty may file for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy effect on vendor and supply contracts

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Companies should anticipate the possibility that they will find themselves in a situation where a vendor, customer, or other contract counterparty commences a bankruptcy case pursuant to Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused economic stress to a wide variety of business sectors, and it has underscored the risk that a contract counterparty may file for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy effect on vendor and supply contracts

Counterparties to swap and repurchase transactions have come under pressure following the financial dislocations caused by the novel coronavirus pandemic in 2020 (“COVID-19”). Falling and illiquid markets may result in margin calls that create immediate liquidity risk and may lead to an event of default if required margin is not posted in accordance with the contract.

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Public Law No. 116-136 (the “CARES Act” or the “Act”), the stimulus package designed to mitigate the widespread economic impacts of the coronavirus (“COVID-19”). The Act includes important temporary modifications [1] to Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), applicable to small -business debtor reorganizations.

Temporary Increase in Debt Limit

In response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California held that the rejection of wholesale power purchase agreements “is solely within the power of the bankruptcy court, a core matter exclusively this court’s responsibility.” [1]

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Merit”), which addressed the scope of the safe harbor found in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code for settlement payments.

Australia Restructuring and InsolvencyAlert 

On 28 March 2017, the Federal Government released its long awaited draft legislation for reforms to insolvency laws in Australia. The changes focus on providing a safe harbour for directors of distressed companies and a stay on the enforcement of ipso facto clauses in contracts.