In the wake of the high profile collapse of the private equity firm Abraaj Capital, the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) updated its insolvency regime with the introduction on June 13, 2019 of the new DIFC Insolvency Law (Law No.1 of 2019) (the “DIFC Insolvency Law”).

Disagreeing with the much-critiqued SDNY opinion in Enron, the SDNY bankruptcy court disallowed claims brought by secondary transferees because the original claimants allegedly received millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers and preferences from the Debtors that have not been repaid. Deepening the district spilt on the nature of Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that the defense barring fraudulent transfer-tainted claims focuses on claims—not claimants—and cannot be “washed clean” by a subsequent transfer in the secondary market.

With the significant strain placed on market participants as a result of the combined impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the oil price war and the ensuing liquidity and credit crunches, we expect that a number of enterprises in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") will either be forced to carry out restructurings or otherwise undergo formal court-supervised insolvency processes.

Jamais dans l’histoire les entreprises de toutes tailles et de pratiquement toutes les industries n’ont affronté une crise résultant à la fois d’un tarissement des sources d’approvisionnement et de la demande de façon simultanée. La crise de liquidités qui en découle engendre une insécurité omniprésente au sein des gestionnaires des entreprises et de l’ensemble des parties intéressées de celles-ci, incluant leurs employés, actionnaires, clients, fournisseurs, créanciers et les communautés dans lesquelles les entreprises opèrent.

Never before in history have businesses of all sizes and of all or almost all industries faced a crisis resulting from a simultaneous decline of supply and demand. The resulting liquidity crisis is creating pervasive insecurity among the managers of businesses and the stakeholders of those businesses, including their employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, creditors and the communities in which the businesses operate.

Dans l’affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies relative à Nemaska Lithium, la Cour supérieure du Québec rend une décision intéressante en ce qui concerne la possibilité pour une débitrice de résilier des contrats auxquels elle est partie et sur son obligation, le cas échéant, de payer à son cocontractant les frais qu’il doit encourir pour reprendre possession de biens loués.

In the matter of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act of Nemaska Lithium, the Québec Superior Court rendered an interesting decision regarding the possibility for a debtor to disclaim agreements and its obligation, if any, to pay its counterparty the costs it must incur to repossess leased property.

Background: Nemaska Lithium disclaims a housing modules rental agreement

As governments impose restrictions on travel and more and more people are self-isolating and taking steps towards social distancing, the entire travel industry, the live entertainment industry and businesses with bricks and mortar presences, like restaurants and retail stores, expect to experience an immediate drop in revenue.

Confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan generally requires the consent of each impaired class of creditors. A debtor can “cramdown” a plan over creditor dissent, however, as long as at least one class of impaired claims accepts the plan.