This article was originally published in Law360. 

During this time of economic upheaval amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, many corporate borrowers are faced with the inability to service debt obligations, and creditors may seek to hold corporate officers and directors accountable as a result. In these uncertain times, it is wise to review the fiduciary duties of corporate directors and officers and the effects of financial distress on such duties.[1] The following Q&A provides guidance on this issue from a Delaware law perspective, as Delaware is the most commonly cited jurisdiction for corporate governance.

For months, landlords and tenants impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic have wondered whether force majeure clauses in leases would excuse a tenant's non-payment of rent. On June 3, 2020, a Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois offered us an early look into how courts might interpret such clauses in the midst of the current crisis. In In re Hitz Restaurant Group, No. 20-B05012, 2020 WL 2924523 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 3, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court ruled that Executive Order 2020-7, the Stay-at-Home Order (the "Order") enacted by Illinois Governor, J.B.

The impact of COVID-19 is yet to be fully realized, and many companies are yet to consider restructuring as a means to survive the pandemic, but all companies and all creditors can benefit now from learning how employee matters are treated in a bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (as amended, the Bankruptcy Code). This blog provides a high-level overview of some of the most material matters affecting an employee workforce in the context of a chapter 11 restructuring.

The question whether a counter claim filed against a Corporate Debtor is liable to be stayed during moratorium has been considered by the Courts/NCLT/NCLAT time and again. Since its inception, the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) has been a hotbed of discussions and debates amongst the legal experts. Under the Code, the concept of moratorium is envisaged under Section 13 and 14 and provides for a time period within which the following against the Corporate Debtor are prohibited:

Recent weeks have witnessed seismic shifts in the oil and gas industry because of crashing oil prices, demand destruction associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and crude oil storage reaching record capacity levels. Upstream producers are especially vulnerable to these market pressures and have begun shutting in wells, asserting force majeure, and cutting costs. As counterparties to distressed producers, midstream players face new challenges in navigating contractual relationships and mitigating risk.

INTRODUCTION:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) was enacted by the Parliament with the aim to provide and revamp the framework for insolvency resolution in India in a time bound manner and for the promotion of entrepreneurship, credit availability and balancing of different interests of each and every stakeholder of a Company.

As the impact of COVID-19 is felt across the globe, many airlines have grounded their fleet, ceased operating flights, and are potentially in breach of any financial covenants that they may have in their debt or lease documents, if not already in technical insolvency.

If an airline does go into insolvency, what should banks and lessors do to protect their assets? What issues, practical and legal, should they be aware of?

The Warning Signs

As American individuals, employers, and governments are implementing various restrictions from social distancing to quarantines to reduce the rate of new COVID-19 infections, each of these decisions results in an increasingly negative impact on the American economy. Even with the recent financial aid package passed by Congress, with greater credit constraints and a heightened sensitivity to weak consumer demand, small businesses are among those hit the hardest by COVID-19 restrictions.

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, No. 17-1657, the Supreme Court has held that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract does not abrogate the rights others enjoy under that contract. Although the Court’s ruling specifically dealt with rights to a trademark license, the reasoning appears broader than that. The Supreme Court has in effect done away with a debtor’s right to reject any lease, concession, license, or agreement and then prevent a counterparty from enjoying the use of the rights previously granted.