Executive Summary
Temporary suspension of obligation to file for insolvency and of creditor’s right to request opening of insolvency proceedings
On 25 March 2020 the German parliament passed a bill “to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil, bankruptcy and criminal procedure law” (COVID-19 Bill) that aims at protecting companies that experience financial difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Vorübergehende Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht und des Rechts des Gläubigers, die Eröffnung eines Insolvenzverfahrens zu beantragen
Am 25. März 2020 hat der Deutsche Bundestag ein Gesetz „zur Abmilderung der Folgen der COVID-19-Pandemie im Zivil-, Insolvenz- und Strafverfahrensrecht (COVID-19 Insolvenzgesetz) beschlossen, das darauf abzielt, Unternehmen zu schützen, die infolge der COVID-19-Pandemie in finanzielle Schwierigkeiten geraten.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
Our lives have changed completely in a few days due to COVID-19 and the world’s response to it. Governments react with a multitude of regulations, which have a considerable influence on the economy especially for the Retail & Consumer sector. This affects very different areas of law. Our sector approach consists, among other things, of showing you the legal consequences in the most diverse legal areas and our contact persons for this.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
When it comes to offsets, bankruptcy law provides for two distinct remedies: (1) setoff and (2) recoupment.
Setoff allows a creditor to reduce the amount of prepetition debt it owes a debtor with a corresponding reduction of that creditor’s prepetition claim against the debtor. The remedy of setoff is subject to the automatic stay, as well as various conditions under § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code — including that it does not apply if the debts arise on opposite sides of the date on which the debtor’s case was commenced.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.
The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.