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 COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented economic disruption, creating sudden financial distress across industries. Companies are now facing impacts ranging from a dramatic decline in revenue of uncertain duration, to potential setbacks to M&A transactions, to delayed or canceled financing rounds.
With even some previously well-performing companies potentially entering the so-called zone of insolvency, it’s important to review the fiduciary duties owed by directors and officers and how discharging those duties may change in the face of financial distress.
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.
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.
Chinese firms acquiring foreign assets has been a hot topic for some time. But one often overlooked question is what happens to those overseas assets if the Chinese business fails? Given the scale of Chinese investment overseas and the financial problems currently being experienced by many Mainland businesses, this question is of growing importance. Two recent decisions – one in Hong Kong and one in New York – address this issue and point to the growing demystification and recognition of Chinese insolvency law outside China.
What is the preventive restructuring framework and what are its key features?
Where there is a likelihood of insolvency (but importantly where the debtor is not yet insolvent as defined by national law), Member States must provide debtors with access to a preventive restructuring framework that enables them to restructure, with a view to preventing insolvency and ensuring their viability.
Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.
Only A Few Rule Amendments This Year. Unlike previous years, there are only four rule amendments expected to take effect on December 1, 2019. Here they are:
A Big Answer To A Big Question. After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Here’s the question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC case:
The US Supreme Court decided what the International Trademark Association (INTA) called "the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing" when it ruled on May 20, 2019, that bankrupt companies cannot use bankruptcy law to revoke a trademark license.
In its 8-1 decision, the court resolved a circuit split by holding that a debtor's rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to "reject any executory contract" (a contract that neither party has finished performing), amounts only to a breach of the license.