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:

We reported in our previous blog published on 15 June 2020 (“The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill – a pensions perspective”) that a number of pensions concerns had been raised about the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill). As a result, the Bill was subject to significant amendment and debate from a pensions perspective in the House of Lords.

In the recent decision of Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited, the Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal in upholding the practicality of adjudication by insolvent companies.

Introduction

The past decade has witnessed a significant increase in cross-border commerce involving Chinese companies. If these ventures fail, a common dilemma for our clients has been which jurisdiction they should focus their efforts on when enforcing their rights. As we explain below, the success of a cross-jurisdictional recovery claim can often depend on the important tactical decision of focusing on the correct jurisdiction(s) at the outset.

Identify all relevant jurisdictions

The new Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) has been introduced into the UK Parliament and proposes significant changes to insolvency law, including:

The High Court, in Quinn v Toon [2020] NZHC 816, confirmed that only the reasonable costs of the liquidators will be recoverable.

Ms Toon applied for orders under ss 276 and 278 of the Companies Act 1993 to approve her remuneration claiming $101,729 plus GST and expenses for her work as the liquidator of Investacorp Holdings Ltd.

This was a solvent liquidation.  While there were no creditors, there were disputes between shareholders that Ms Toon spent a considerable amount of time investigating.

In our December 2019 newsletter we commented that the Madoff bankruptcy had one more big case to go, chasing USD3.2b held by foreign banks.  The US Supreme Court has just refused to hear an application by major banks and companies, including Koch Industries Inc, to prevent Mr Picard, the bankruptcy trustee, from pursuing claims aimed at recouping funds that were transferred overseas.  In the meantime, Mr Madoff has been refused early

A Singaporean Court in Anan Group (Singapore) PTE Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33 has recently confirmed the Court’s approach in assessing arbitration clauses when an application has been brought to put a company into liquidation. 

The parties in this case are parties to an arbitration agreement.  The respondent applied to put the appellant into liquidation.  The Court considered that the winding up proceeding should be stayed with the underlying dispute to be resolved through arbitration.

As COVID-19 spread across the globe like wild fire, many of its effects—including an economic downturn and emerging disputes risks—are being felt across markets.