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 arbitrations in Brazil and abroad? We provide our insights in the document below.
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?
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:
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.
Cory Bebb looks at a recent unsuccessful attempt by Administrators to block an £18.6M misfeasance claim by contributories.
“All cats are animals, but all animals are not cats” - former administrators’ attempt to stop £18.6M misfeasance claim based upon their CVA release clause, fails in a provisional ruling: Re Rhino Enterprise Properties Limited [2020] EWHC 2370 (Ch)
The case of Re Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (In Administration)[2020] EWHC 1369 (Ch) in May 2020 highlighted the importance of ensuring that creditors or the creditors committee approve the discharge of Administrators’ liability pursuant to paragraph 98 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.
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.
publication of The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. If approved by Parliament the scheme will come into force on 4 May 2021.
Having successfully obtained a public interest winding-up order in Re PAG Management Services Limited [2015] BCC 720 which operated a business rates avoidance scheme using Members’ Voluntary Liquidations, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy unsuccessfully tackled its successor in the Court of Appeal.
The scheme in this case (Scheme 3) was a variant upon two earlier schemes, Scheme 2 being no longer in operation following the public interest winding-up of PAG Management Services Limited.