As the coronavirus pandemic began spreading through Europe in the early months of 2020, the authorities had little idea of how best to respond – both to the virus itself, and its impact on livelihoods and businesses.

But since then, Europe’s major economies have introduced a suite of measures to contain COVID-19’s spread and keep the economic fallout from social restrictions to a minimum.

Following the global implementation of stay-at-home orders in response to the novel coronavirus, businesses suffered unprecedented declines in demand. As the United States struggles to reign in the contagion, a number of household names – from Chuck E. Cheese to J.C. Penney – have filed for bankruptcy. Logically, distressed M&A transactions should rise as corporations struggle under historic levels of debt, but who is poised to take advantage of a boom in distressed M&A, what are the new realities of distressed M&A and how will these transactions proceed?

The truism that every crisis brings about opportunities also applies to mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Companies that encounter difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, or even have to file for insolvency, will have to seek equity investors or joint venture partners, or otherwise sell parts or, in worst cases, all of their business operations. This provides ample opportunities for corporate buyers to enter a new market or expand their existing business or portfolio – for an attractively low price.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Mexican courts were closed for the past few months and only received urgent cases.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the Mexican economy. As a result, Mexican courts have seen a rise in insolvency cases, which are not as common in Mexico compared to other jurisdictions, such as the United States. The rise of insolvency cases imposes new challenges to Mexican courts and Mexico’s laws.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Nearly two years after it was first passed in Parliament on 1 October 2018, the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (“IRDA”) has now come into operation on 30 July 2020. The IRDA not only unifies Singapore’s legislation in relation to personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring, but also introduces significant changes to the present regime.

In this update, we will highlight nine key changes of the new provisions of the IRDA.

1. Restriction of Ipso Facto Clauses in Insolvency/Restructuring Proceedings

Court closures

India was in complete lockdown from 24 March until 31 May, a situation that inevitably impacted the functioning of Indian courts. Even though most implemented measures to conduct virtual hearings, these hearings have been limited to only the most urgent cases. Once courts return to business as usual, they are likely to receive a surge in filings, which will increase the backlog in a country that already has 30 million pending cases.

The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM)continues to enhance its legislative framework after recently publishing its fourth round of amendments to the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2015.

As part of the latest round of amendments, the ADGM has introduced a new chapter dealing with priority funding (PDF), similar to US Chapter 11 style debtor-in-possession (DIP) funding.

The COVID-19 pandemic is upending economies globally, causing a wave of unexpected insolvencies. The businesses that remain standing may face the question: will my insolvency or that of my counterparty prevent me from resolving disputes by arbitration?

The short answer is no. However, depending on the jurisdiction, there will be some limitations on what can be decided by arbitration. We have therefore briefly summarized some of the issues and challenges that a party may face under US law in the context of an arbitration arising from its own or an opposing party’s insolvency.

On 26 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) came into force. The Act marks the most significant insolvency reforms in a generation. It doesn’t just deal with measures required to tide companies through the COVID-19 pandemic but includes far-reaching wholesale reforms to the UK’s restructuring toolbox, including the introduction of the restructuring plan, which has the potential to be a gamechanger for restructurings.

There are two temporary measures dealing with COVID-19 impacts on companies specifically: