Barely any region, sector or business remains unaffected by the exponentially growing pandemic. Stock market values, and thus also valuations for private companies, are plummeting due to the existing uncertainties.
Against this background, the question arises of how to deal with signed share or asset purchase agreements, if closing is still imminent. From the buyer's point of view, a valuation from the time before the COVID 19 crisis may now appear very expensive. The pandemic may trigger not only contractual provisions but also various legal remedies.
Cash flow and current and future liquidity are now real concerns for many businesses during this COVID-19 pandemic. Increasingly, the attention of directors and the wider economic ecosystem is turning to consider the issues of approaching insolvency and the duties of directors.
In line with the current approach of the UK Government to support businesses, on Saturday, 28 March, the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, announced that UK wrongful trading insolvency laws are to temporarily change to help give businesses and directors some "breathing space".
This week the Slovenian Government sent a new law - the first big anti-corona law package - the Intervention Measures to Mitigate the Effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) Infectious Disease Epidemic on Citizens and the Economy Act into the legislative procedure.
On Monday, 16th March 2020, the Federal Act on provisional measures to prevent the dissemination of COVID-19 (COVID-19-Measures Act) came into effect in Austria.
In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).
Background
What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?
The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.
Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?
In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.
On 7 December 2018, Serbian Parliament passed yet another Act on Amendments of Bankruptcy Law that will be applicable as of 1 January 2019.
These changes make the third change of the Bankruptcy Law in less then a year.
The Ministry of Commerce issued a Communiqué on 15 September 2018 ("Communiqué") setting out the principles and procedures pertaining to the application of Article 376 of the Turkish Commercial Code ("TCC"). In brief, Article 376 regulates the measures to be adopted by joint stock companies and limited liability companies (for the purposes of this article, each a "company") in cases of loss of capital or insolvency.
Introduction
Law No 7101 on Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and Other Laws (“Law No 7101”) has been published in the Official Gazette dated 15 March 2018. Law No 7101 i) abolishes the postponement of bankruptcy procedures, ii) introduces a new composition procedure for insolvent companies and iii) improves secured creditors’ rights in bankruptcy.
Lifting of Postponement of Bankruptcy