Due to the COVID 19 pandemic (hereafter, “COVID-19”), the closure of numerous shops and other businesses has been ordered by the authorities. Other shops and businesses are suffering losses in sales, some of them severe. As a result, many tenants will find themselves in an economic predicament and will be unable to pay their rent, at least temporarily. The question has therefore already been raised several times as to whether tenants are still obliged to pay rent during the current situation.

*This information is accurate as of 9.00 am Wednesday 25 March 2020 and is subject to change as this situation evolves.

A tenant's solvency, or its risk of insolvency, is not a novel concern for landlords and tenants alike. But the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic is putting corporate tenant solvency risk into the hot spotlight arguably like never before, and for good reason.

The German federal government is currently preparing new legislation to reduce the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. This news alert deals with the proposed changes to the insolvency and restructuring related German regulations.

In an unprecedented move the Federal Government has announced temporary changes to some aspects of existing insolvency laws as part of the plan to try and keep businesses operating during this unique health crisis time.

Insolvent Trading

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” - Benjamin Franklin

An increasing number of businesses — even those that have traditionally been financially and operationally sound — are now experiencing unanticipated revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Companies may find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being out of compliance with financial covenants with lenders, unable to meet financial obligations to vendors, in default of contractual obligations, or in need of financial or restructuring/bankruptcy assistance.

Summary and Key Takeaways

Lenders should view as cautionary tales two recently handed down decisions regarding UCC-1 financing statements and the perfection of security interests. On December 20, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas in In re Preston held that security interests in personal property were unperfected because the UCC-1 incorrectly set forth the debtor’s name. On January 2, 2020, the U.S.

A critical bankruptcy litigation issue has finally been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until recently, litigants had been faced with the dilemma of whether to immediately appeal a denial with prejudice of a request for stay relief or wait until the underlying matter had been fully adjudicated. Given the uncertainty, parties remained unsure if they risked losing the ability to challenge the denial of stay relief by a bankruptcy court if they waited to appeal. Now it is clear that they will. In Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, 589 U.S.

On January 27, 2020, FERC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) for rehearing en banc of that court’s decision finding bankruptcy court-FERC concurrent jurisdiction over certain power purchase agreements. Notwithstanding such concurrent jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit’s decision finds that the bankruptcy court’s concurrent jurisdiction is paramount, and that therefore, FERC-jurisdictional power purchase agreements are susceptible to rejection in bankruptcy.