The Covid-19 crisis is impacting on all businesses across Germany including the dynamic German start-up scene. In this article we outline some of the more important measures taken by the German government to support start-ups through the crisis. These measures include providing immediate financial support, loan finance, subsidies for short-time work schemes, relaxation of management obligations to file for insolvency, tax relief schemes and the suspension of social security payment obligations.

The German government has moved quickly and decisively to protect businesses from the short-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. A new law was passed by parliament using remote voting procedures and comes into today, 27 March 2020. The Covid-19 Suspension of Insolvency Law (COVInsAG) provides a protective shield for businesses against the economic fallout caused by the extraordinary measures taken to limit the spread of the SARS- CoV 2 virus which causes the illness we now know as Covid-19.

The law addresses three main areas:

Cash pooling during the COVID-19 pandemic provides particular challenges for management. What the most important issues on which to focus?

Many businesses, particularly those operating internationally, have set up group cash pooling systems to optimise payment processes and maximise liquidity. A well-structured cash pooling system offers a treasury department transparency over the group's liquidity and by centralising financing requirements can reduce costs.

Eine Betriebsprüfung beim Arbeitgeber kann dazu führen, dass Sozialversicherungsbeiträge nachgefordert werden. Die Folge kann eine drohende Insolvenz sein.

Die Restrukturierungs-Richtlinie ist in aller Munde. Wir zeigen, welche Auswirkungen sie auf das Arbeitsrecht hat.

Der vollständige Name lautet: Richtlinie (EU) 2019/1023 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 20. Juni 2019 über präventive Restrukturierungsrahmen, über Entschuldung und über Tätigkeitsverbote sowie über Maßnahmen zur Steigerung der Effizienz von Restrukturierungs-, Insolvenz- und Entschuldungsverfahren und zur Änderung der Richtlinie (EU) 2017/1132.

In complex long-term charters for vessels or finance leases in respect of vessels under the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) and its Article 2A (governing commercial matters relating to finance leases) and under other similar law, a charterer’s or lessor’s damages under a charter or lease— both generally upon a payment default or in the event of a casualty—are often liquidated in stipulated loss value (“SLV”) provisions. These provisions ensure that the lessor/charterer gets the benefit of its bargain.

The Insolvency Working Group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”⁾¹ has been busy this past year, working on three new model laws and developing work on at least two possible future projects.2 The Insolvency Working Group is responsible for drafting the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the “CBI Model Law”) in 1997, which has since been adopted in 46 countries and is under consideration in several others. In 2005, the United States adopted the CBI Model Law as Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 

The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of debtors to use contract rejection in bankruptcy to shed unwanted trademark licensees. But the Court acknowledged that the result could change if the trademark licensing agreement had different termination rights. Going forward, parties entering into trademark licensing agreements will need to consider this decision carefully as they negotiate termination rights in the event of a bankruptcy by the licensor.

With the May 1 order, the Commission reaffirms its view that it has concurrent jurisdiction over debtors’ efforts to reject their FERC-jurisdictional contracts in bankruptcy. Further developments in judicial proceedings in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are expected.

On May 1, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s requests for rehearing of two commission orders asserting concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts over the disposition of wholesale power contracts PG&E seeks to reject through bankruptcy.[1]