L’arbitrage est un mode consensuel de résolution des différends qui permet aux parties de personnaliser leur processus et même de choisir leur propre décideur. L’insolvabilité est le scénario diamétralement opposé, dans lequel les différends concernant le débiteur sont involontairement regroupés devant un seul tribunal d’insolvabilité.

Arbitration is a consensual method of dispute resolution in which the parties can customize their process and even select their own decision-maker. Insolvency is the diametrically opposite scenario, where disputes involving the debtor are involuntarily consolidated before a single insolvency court.

Introduction

On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its written reasons in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp.^[1](the Bluberi case).

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.

Italy is already implementing the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 June 2019 (the “Directive”), related to the preventive restructuring frameworks, discharge and measures aiming at increasing the effectiveness of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures, that Member States shall implement within 17 July 2021.

L’Italia sembra essere in netto anticipo nel recepimento della direttiva (UE) 2019/1023 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio del 20 giugno 2019 (la “Direttiva”), riguardante i quadri di ristrutturazione preventiva, l'esdebitazione e le interdizioni, e le misure volte ad aumentare l'efficacia delle procedure di ristrutturazione, insolvenza ed esdebitazione, che gli Stati membri dovranno fare propria entro il 17 luglio 2021.

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.

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.