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.
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.
Si certains employeurs peuvent affronter la crise actuelle en mettant en œuvre un régime de chômage temporaire – consistant soit en une suspension complète du contrat de travail ou en une suspension partielle et partant à l’application d’une réduction du temps de travail – d’autres employeurs sont contraints de procéder à des licenciements. Des mesures complémentaires de soutien ont été adoptées afin de compenser la diminution des activités par une réduction du temps de travail, permettant ainsi de faire baisser le coût du travail sans devoir procéder à des licenciements.
The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM)continues to enhance its legislative framework after recently publishing its fourth round of amendments to the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2015.
As part of the latest round of amendments, the ADGM has introduced a new chapter dealing with priority funding (PDF), similar to US Chapter 11 style debtor-in-possession (DIP) funding.
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
Dutch law provides for an extension of the limitation period in relation to claims that were “deliberately hidden” from the creditor (article 3:321 (f) Dutch Civil Code). The extension also applies if the debtor deliberately hid the fact that the claim had become due and payable (upon fulfilment of a certain condition, for example). It is, however, unclear what kind of conduct qualifies as deliberate hiding.