The economic hardships brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted companies globally, leading many to consider both in-court and out-of-court restructurings. Because this trend will likely continue as the long-term effects of COVID-19 play out, companies with arbitration clauses in their commercial agreements may wish to consider the impact of insolvency on their options for pursuing pending or future arbitrations.

This week, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in NJDEP v. American Thermoplastics Corp et al., No. 18-2865, which adds a new wrinkle on CERCLA section 113(f)(2), which bars non-settling parties from bringing claims for contribution against settling parties, while also placing new emphasis on CERCLA section 104 cooperative agreements in the context of settlements.

This article discusses some of the main considerations that arise when a party considering arbitration or already engaged in arbitration files for insolvency, or has its counterparty file for insolvency, under German insolvency law.

Background

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIG Act) came into force which introduced fundamental changes to the UK’s company and insolvency laws which not only provide temporary assistance to companies and their directors during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, but on a permanent basis have significantly bolstered the UK’s restructuring tool kit. Amongst other matters, the CIG Act implements measures contained in the UK Government's consultation on Insolvency and Corporate Governance which concluded in August 2018.

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

Since PROMESA was enacted in 2016 to pave the way for a comprehensive restructuring of Puerto Rico’s mounting municipal debt obligations, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (District Court) has become a haven for litigious groups of creditors and other constituencies. Undoubtedly frustrated with the progress and trajectory of the cases of the commonwealth and its subsidiaries, these groups have mounted a number of complex legal attacks to the efficacy and validity of PROMESA. However, the debtors recently secured a significant win in Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd.

In Mexico, all a debtor’s assets are subject to account for the performance of its obligations, except for those assets which, pursuant to law, are inalienable or cannot be attached.1 When a debtor is unable to pay its debts as they become due, it falls into insolvency which is an economic phenomenon with financial, social and legal consequences. When a debtor is unable to pay its debts as they become due, the Mexican legal system provides a mechanism to address the collective satisfaction of the claims with the assets of the debtor.

On 20 May 2020, the U.K. government published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the bill), which includes measures designed to help businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic and features important substantive reforms to U.K. restructuring law, whose introduction has been accelerated by the crisis.

COVID-19-Related Measures:

The key temporary measures introduced by the bill are:

Statutory Demands and Winding up Petitions

As businesses experience diminishing revenues, falling stock prices, and other economic hardships resulting from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), some economists project the possibility of an unprecedented number of business bankruptcies. Some of these businesses own brands, and some have entered into relationships, most commonly trademark licenses, under which they allow others to use their brands. What happens to a trademark license when a brand owner becomes insolvent, particularly in the context of a reorganization under Chapter 11?