Brazilian companies have increasingly chosen arbitration as their preferred method for resolving domestic and international disputes. Now the impact of COVID-19 in Brazil has caused a sharp increase in insolvencies, and there is no expectation of a quick turnaround in the next months and, possibly, years to come. What, then, are the potential effects of Brazilian insolvency proceedings on arbitration in Brazil and abroad?

Are arbitration agreements affected by the opening of insolvency proceedings?

While announcements have been made, and measures extended, to help corporate Britain, directors faced with the difficult decision of whether to trade on through the crisis could suddenly very exposed once again.

On 26 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) came into force. The Act included far-reaching wholescale reforms to the UK’s restructuring toolbox, including the introduction of the restructuring plan, which has the potential to be a gamechanger for restructurings.

It also included temporary measures dealing with COVID-19 impacts on companies. The two most significant temporary measures for companies facing financial difficulties as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic were:

The focus on Modern Methods of Construction, or MMC, sharpened throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with many wondering whether the outbreak and the consequential delays to existing construction projects would propel MMC forward as the future of construction.

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.

As previously reported in our article of 21 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Act), introduced a number of new tools for businesses suffering financial distress. One of the new measures introduced by the Act was the 'Restructuring Plan' – a process modelled on the existing scheme of arrangement (Scheme) but with the following key distinctions:

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 UK's Supreme Court ("UKSC") has handed down its judgment following the hearing of the appeal in the case of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 ("Marex"). The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal to find that the rule of reflective loss applied to 90% of Marex's claim, which was brought in its capacity as a creditor.

The appeal was unanimously allowed by UKSC and it confirmed the rule did not extend to creditors.