Under the Insolvency Suspension Act COVID-19 (COVInsAG), the obligation to file for insolvency is suspended under certain conditions due to the coronavirus. The regulations apply retroactively to 01.03.2020.

The coronavirus is spreading fast. Measures to slow its spread are already hitting companies hard and will cause many companies considerable financial difficulties in the foreseeable future.

Obligation to file for insolvency

The Covid-19 crisis is impacting on all businesses across Germany including the dynamic German start-up scene. In this article we outline some of the more important measures taken by the German government to support start-ups through the crisis. These measures include providing immediate financial support, loan finance, subsidies for short-time work schemes, relaxation of management obligations to file for insolvency, tax relief schemes and the suspension of social security payment obligations.

The German government has moved quickly and decisively to protect businesses from the short-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. A new law was passed by parliament using remote voting procedures and comes into today, 27 March 2020. The Covid-19 Suspension of Insolvency Law (COVInsAG) provides a protective shield for businesses against the economic fallout caused by the extraordinary measures taken to limit the spread of the SARS- CoV 2 virus which causes the illness we now know as Covid-19.

The law addresses three main areas:

Cash pooling during the COVID-19 pandemic provides particular challenges for management. What the most important issues on which to focus?

Many businesses, particularly those operating internationally, have set up group cash pooling systems to optimise payment processes and maximise liquidity. A well-structured cash pooling system offers a treasury department transparency over the group's liquidity and by centralising financing requirements can reduce costs.

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.

The consequences of an order or judgement being final or interlocutory are enormous. An order from an interlocutory order requires leave since these orders are not appealable as of right. In addition, a failure to obtain leave may result in the issue becoming moot. This is especially so when motions to lift the stay are involved: if the motion is denied and is not immediately appealable, by the time the case is concluded, the issues will most likely be moot.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, No. 13-3992-cv (L) (2d Cir., Dec. 19, 2019) that Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) barred claims seeking to avoid payments made by Tribune to its shareholders as part of a leveraged buyout (LBO).

Yes, says the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit recently held that the Bankruptcy Court has the authority to confirm a chapter 11 plan which contains nonconsensual, third-party releases when such releases are integral to the successful reorganization. The court’s decision in In re Millennium holds that, when the third-party releases are integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship, the Bankruptcy Court has the constitutional authority to approve nonconsensual, third-party releases.

Background

In the fifth opinion involving the repo liquidation saga of HomeBanc, the Third Circuit addressed several crucial issues involving the liquidation and valuation of repo collateral in bankruptcy. In re HomeBanc Mortg. Corp., 2019 WL 7161215 (3d Cir. Dec. 24, 2019).

Background