The Coronavirus pandemic, while primarily a public health issue, is creating numerous legal concerns. We have identified some of the key issues and developments below. In addition, we have formed a task force comprised of partners and senior lawyers from across all practice groups and offices to track developments and provide timely guidance to clients on Coronavirus-related issues.

M&A

On November 23, 2018, the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) approved the Tax Reform Act of 2018 (the "Tax Reform Act"; Gesetz zur Vermeidung von Umsatzsteuerausfllen beim Handel mit Waren im Internet und zur nderung weiterer steuerlicher Vorschriften), which was passed by the German Parliament (Bundestag) on November 8, 2018.

On November 23, 2018, the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) approved the Tax Reform Act of 2018 (the “Tax Reform Act”; Gesetz zur Vermeidung von Umsatzsteuerausfällen beim Handel mit Waren im Internet und zur Änderung weiterer steuerlicher Vorschriften), which was passed by the German Parliament (Bundestag) on November 8, 2018.

On November 23, 2018 the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) approved the Tax Reform Act of 2018 (the “Tax Reform Act”; Gesetz zur Vermeidung von Umsatzsteuerausfällen beim Handel mit Waren im Internet und zur Änderung weiterer steuerlicher Vorschriften), which was passed by the German Parliament (Bundestag) on November 8, 2018.

Avago Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing Inc. acquired PLX Technologies, Inc. for $6.50 per share in cash. After the $300 million merger closed, certain former PLX stockholders sued for damages, alleging that the PLX directors had breached their fiduciary breaches, aided and abetted by both Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. (a hedge fund that is an activist stockholder and had three designees on the PLX board) and the PLX board’s financial advisor (the “Banker”).

Credit agreements by their terms commonly bar the borrower from seeking punitive, indirect, special or consequential damages for a breach of the agreement by lenders and their affiliates. The clauses, as enforced, prevent a borrower from obtaining damages for harm that may be suffered by the borrower's business if the lender wrongfully declines to fund. The clauses prevent lenders from exposure to open-ended damages claims if the lenders refuse to lend to a borrower, including damages that are the direct and indirect result of the failure to lend.

Introduction – Distressed Issuers and Borrowers

On January 15, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) held in In re Trump Entertainment Resorts that section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor to reject an expired collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).

In Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. Vertin (Oct. 20, 2015), the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a post-trial decision, rejected Quadrant’s challenges to transactions by Athilon Capital Corp., with Athilon’s sole stockholder (private equity firm Merced), after Athilon had returned to solvency following a long period of insolvency. Merced held all of Athilon’s equity and all of its junior notes; and both Quadrant and Merced held the company’s publicly traded senior notes.

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed the order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.) approving a settlement and dismissal of a chapter 11 case by way of a “structured dismissal.” A structured dismissal is, simply, the dismissal of the bankruptcy case preceded by other orders, such as an order approving a settlement or granting releases, which survive dismissal of the case.