A recent bankruptcy case now on appeal is being closely watched for the significant economic repercussions it could have on debtors and creditors alike. On October 26, 2020, in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the debtor must pay (1) the make-whole premium owed under its debt documents and (2) post-petition interest at the contractual default rate.

The New York Court of Appeals’ recent 4-3 opinion in CNH Diversified Opportunities Master Account, L.P. v. Cleveland Unlimited, Inc., 2020 WL 6163305 (NY Oct. 22, 2020), could provide minority noteholders with additional negotiating leverage in the context of attempted out-of-court restructurings. However, the scope of this decision’s impact, and whether it conflicts with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s prior holding in Marblegate Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Educ. Mgmt. Fin. Corp., 846 F.3d 1 (2d Cir.

The economic hardships brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted companies globally, leading many to consider both in-court and out-of-court restructurings. Because this trend will likely continue as the long-term effects of COVID-19 play out, companies with arbitration clauses in their commercial agreements may wish to consider the impact of insolvency on their options for pursuing pending or future arbitrations.

This article discusses some of the main considerations that arise when a party considering arbitration or already engaged in arbitration files for insolvency, or has its counterparty file for insolvency, under German insolvency law.

Since PROMESA was enacted in 2016 to pave the way for a comprehensive restructuring of Puerto Rico’s mounting municipal debt obligations, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (District Court) has become a haven for litigious groups of creditors and other constituencies. Undoubtedly frustrated with the progress and trajectory of the cases of the commonwealth and its subsidiaries, these groups have mounted a number of complex legal attacks to the efficacy and validity of PROMESA. However, the debtors recently secured a significant win in Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd.

The passage and the working of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is an important landmark in India’s tryst with insolvency and debt restructuring laws. Further, the interpretation provided by the courts, from holding that the Code is not a means for recovery of dues to reinforcing the primacy and commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors, along with appropriate and timely amendments by the legislature in line with the object of the Code has certainly aided in the successful implementation of the Code.

On 20 May 2020, the U.K. government published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the bill), which includes measures designed to help businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic and features important substantive reforms to U.K. restructuring law, whose introduction has been accelerated by the crisis.

COVID-19-Related Measures:

The key temporary measures introduced by the bill are:

Statutory Demands and Winding up Petitions

The following article is the translation of an associated podcast, which is available in German here.

A moratorium on bankruptcy filings and certain security enforcement has been imposed by the Russian government for at least six months with respect to many categories of companies. During this period, the ability of creditors to enforce their existing rights will be restricted significantly. It is likely that the negotiating balance will swing in debtors’ favor, but the moratorium will place all business and survival decisions of those protected companies under increased scrutiny and at risk of being challenged or found void in certain cases.

Legal Background

The U.K. government has announced a series of measures intended to support businesses impacted by coronavirus/COVID-19, including suspension of the wrongful trading regime, a job-retention scheme and a temporary ban on the eviction of commercial tenants.

Suspension of Wrongful Trading Regime