The declaration of the state of emergencybecause of the COVID-19 crisis will significantly increase the number of applications for insolvency in Spain.
Measures proposed by the General Council of the Judiciary (Consejo General del Poder Judicial) (GCJ) are designed to streamline insolvency proceedings in order to facilitate the continuity of the business activity of insolvent companies or, at least, to enable them to obtain the maximum performance from the sale of their assets.
In this context, the GCJ measures appear to be based on two principles:
As part of the package of measures to mitigate the effects of the corona crisis, the German Bundestag has fast-tracked an act to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil law, insolvency law, and the law on criminal procedure, adopting it into law on 25 March 2020.
The act contains a civil law moratorium that benefits parties who owe certain forms of contractual performance where the COVID-19 pandemic has forced them into the position that they cannot meet their contractual obligations.
- Main points of interest and preliminary analysis –
The German parliament has adopted new legislation yesterday which is expected to become law soon. This briefing summarises the changes made, as well as a number of other legal aspects we find noteworthy in current times with regard to the real estate sector.
On 25 March 2020, the German Parliament (Bundestag) passed, in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, significant changes in law (the “New Law”). These changes are subject to approval by the Federal Council (Bundesrat), which, however, is expected to be granted soon.
One of the key issues facing all public companies during the COVID-19 crisis is how and when to update necessary market disclosures relating to the risk impact of the pandemic on their business.
History has taught us that prolonged periods of market volatility increase the risks of litigation against both companies and their governing boards, and that the way in which they act now can have long-lasting effects.
Some companies may face severe solvency issues, which will lead to questions around the disclosure of the company’s financial position.
The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on the global economy. The equity markets, the travel and tourism industry, and retail establishments of all stripes have been hit hard. In addition to manufacturing, shipping, and other operational and supply chain disruptions, companies will need to address their borrowing requirements. Likewise, lenders, bondholders and alternative capital providers will need to consider what their rights and obligations are under their financing documents.
The German Federal Government is currently working on a Law for the Mitigation of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in the areas of Insolvency, Corporate, Civil and Criminal Procedure Law. Ministry officials are working through the weekend with the goal to get the legislation finalized by both chambers of parliament as early as possible next week.
The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has widespread and significant implications for the financing situation of companies. Mandatory emergency measures, such as closure orders, have cut off entire sectors from revenue and cash flows with severe consequences for corporate liquidity. In addition, deteriorating market conditions are putting additional pressure on companies and their ability to service their debt.
Yesterday the UK Insolvency Service released their quarterly statistics spanning October to December 2019. These confirm that liquidations and administrations in 2019 hit levels not seen for over five years. This signals a potentially serious underlying concern about the UK economy.
Chinese firms acquiring foreign assets has been a hot topic for some time. But one often overlooked question is what happens to those overseas assets if the Chinese business fails? Given the scale of Chinese investment overseas and the financial problems currently being experienced by many Mainland businesses, this question is of growing importance. Two recent decisions – one in Hong Kong and one in New York – address this issue and point to the growing demystification and recognition of Chinese insolvency law outside China.