* On March 30, 2020, Fried Frank published a memorandum titled COVID-19 Pandemic: Key UK Government and Bank of England Initiatives to Support Businesses ("March 30 Memorandum"). In light of the rapidly developing situation and government response, the March 30 Memorandum has been updated to include the latest guidance provided by the UK Government, in particular as to employment retention initiatives and loan schemes, and is current as of April 15, 2020.

In Germany, as in many other countries, a number of laws have been passed in order to respond to the economic challenges in connection with the Covid-19 crisis. This memorandum provides a brief summary and overview focusing on the most relevant changes to the legal landscape.

I. Financial Support

As markets react to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the trading prices of loans and notes have declined. In light of these developments, borrowers and their affiliates, including private equity sponsors, are considering whether to buy back outstanding debt at a discount. In analyzing the potential benefits and drawbacks of pursuing debt repurchases, borrowers and private equity sponsors should consider the following:

Outstanding Debt Documents

To Our Clients and Friends Memorandum March 30, 2020 Copyright © 2020 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership 1 COVID-19 Pandemic: Key UK Government and Bank of England Initiatives to Support Businesses * In light of the rapidly developing situation and government response, this memorandum is current as of March 29, 2020. The rapid transmission of COVID-19 around the world has had a transformative impact on economies, politics and societies. Europe and the United States, in particular, have now emerged as epicentres of the pandemic.

With businesses focused on the impact of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on current and future liquidity, balance sheet and cash flow concerns, and an expected decline in the level and profitability of business activity in these difficult and uncertain times, in many cases attention has turned to the issue of the duties and responsibilities of directors to creditors when a corporation is financially troubled and is either approaching insolvency (the so-called “zone of insolvency”) or becomes insolvent.

The Coronavirus pandemic, while primarily a public health issue, is creating numerous legal concerns. We have identified some of the key issues and developments below. In addition, we have formed a task force comprised of partners and senior lawyers from across all practice groups and offices to track developments and provide timely guidance to clients on Coronavirus-related issues.

M&A

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected a loan servicer’s appeal from a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling to remand to the lower bankruptcy court a punitive damages award for alleged discharge violations.

In so ruling, the Court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction regarding the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling as to the punitive damages award, but affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s denial of the debtors’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that a debtor alleged a plausible claim against a mortgage loan servicer under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the servicer’s proof of claim filed after obtaining a foreclosure judgment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

A copy of the opinion in Shaw v. Bank of America is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that — despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements — the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.