The German parliament has adopted new legislation yesterday which is expected to become law soon. This briefing summarises the changes made, as well as a number of other legal aspects we find noteworthy in current times with regard to the real estate sector.

On 25 March 2020, the German Parliament (Bundestag) passed, in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, significant changes in law (the “New Law”). These changes are subject to approval by the Federal Council (Bundesrat), which, however, is expected to be granted soon.

One of the key issues facing all public companies during the COVID-19 crisis is how and when to update necessary market disclosures relating to the risk impact of the pandemic on their business.

History has taught us that prolonged periods of market volatility increase the risks of litigation against both companies and their governing boards, and that the way in which they act now can have long-lasting effects.

Some companies may face severe solvency issues, which will lead to questions around the disclosure of the company’s financial position.

The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on the global economy. The equity markets, the travel and tourism industry, and retail establishments of all stripes have been hit hard. In addition to manufacturing, shipping, and other operational and supply chain disruptions, companies will need to address their borrowing requirements. Likewise, lenders, bondholders and alternative capital providers will need to consider what their rights and obligations are under their financing documents.

The German Federal Government is currently working on a Law for the Mitigation of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in the areas of Insolvency, Corporate, Civil and Criminal Procedure Law. Ministry officials are working through the weekend with the goal to get the legislation finalized by both chambers of parliament as early as possible next week.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has widespread and significant implications for the financing situation of companies. Mandatory emergency measures, such as closure orders, have cut off entire sectors from revenue and cash flows with severe consequences for corporate liquidity. In addition, deteriorating market conditions are putting additional pressure on companies and their ability to service their debt.

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.

Yesterday the UK Insolvency Service released their quarterly statistics spanning October to December 2019. These confirm that liquidations and administrations in 2019 hit levels not seen for over five years. This signals a potentially serious underlying concern about the UK economy.

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.