As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to shake global markets, it is likely that more companies will need to restructure to address liquidity constraints, to right-size their balance sheets, or to implement operational restructurings. In addition to a potential surge in restructurings, the spread of COVID-19 is already having pronounced impacts on companies planning or pursuing restructurings, and further market turmoil may cause even broader changes to the restructuring marketplace.

Potential Increase in Restructuring Activity

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”

In a recent decision arising out of the Republic Airways bankruptcy, Judge Sean Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the liquidated damages provisions of certain aircraft leases were improper penalties and, thus, “unenforceable as against public policy” under Article 2A the New York Uniform Commercial Code. In re Republic Airways Holdings Inc., 2019 WL 630336 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019).

On February 8, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, affirmed a Bankruptcy Court order enjoining a claimant from pursuing claims against a debtor’s non-debtor affiliates based upon third-party release and injunction provisions included in the debtor’s confirmed chapter 11 plan. In re CJ Holding Co., 2019 WL 497728 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2019).

Control to Serbian Creditors- the amendments to the Serbian Insolvency Act

The recent amendments to the Serbian Insolvency Act enacted 9 December 2018 have placed more control into creditors’ hands allowing them to suggest the insolvency administrator to be appointed, as well as providing less restrictive provisions on the proposers of reorganisation proposals.

SINGAPORE INSOLVENCY, RESTRUCTURING AND DISSOLUTION BILL PASSED 

On 1 October 2018, The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill was passed in Singapore. 

This will consolidate personal and corporate insolvency laws into the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, with the Bankruptcy Act to be repealed and the relevant corporate insolvency provisions in the Companies Act being removed. 

In a recent landmark cross border decision the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court clarified that general managers cannot rely on their Directors and Officers Liability Insurance cover (D&O) in the event of a claim for repayment under Germany's "wrongful trading" legislation. 

Providing cover for the directors and officers of a company or the company itself, D&O insurance provides reimbursement in the event the insured suffers loss as a result of legal action brought for alleged wrongful acts of the directors and officers.  

On 26 August the UK Government announced its intention to introduce radical reforms to insolvency law in the catchily named consultation paper "Insolvency and Corporate Governance – Government Response". Despite the 82 pages, the government kept their cards relatively close to their chest choosing not to reveal their big plans but with suggestions about the reforms ahead to "enable more companies not only to survive, but to thrive".

The Department for BEIS has recently published a consultation to the UK's insolvency and corporate governance landscape including significant proposals to extend the liability of directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).