The Bottom Line

The Delaware District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision that the combination of a narrow arbitration provision and the bankruptcy court’s reservation of jurisdiction warranted denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The specific language of the arbitration provision, combined with the use of an accounting term of art, narrowed the scope of the arbitration provision sufficiently to rebut the presumption of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

What Happened?

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.

The German Federal Government is currently working on a Law for the Mitigation of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in the areas of Insolvency, Corporate, Civil and Criminal Procedure Law. Ministry officials are working through the weekend with the goal to get the legislation finalized by both chambers of parliament as early as possible next week.

Background of the Act

The financial loss and the uncertainty caused by the pandemic continues to affect business globally, and an increase in corporate insolvency is widely anticipated. Arbitration is an effective dispute resolution mechanism, but a counterparty entering insolvency proceedings can be disruptive. We recently wrote about insolvency being one of the key trends in international arbitration in 2021.

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?

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.

Empresas brasileiras têm optado por resolver disputas nacionais e internacionais via arbitragem. Mais recentemente, os impactos econômicos do COVID-19 no Brasil têm causado um aumento considerável do número de recuperações judiciais e falências. Sem expectativa de que essa tendência seja revertida dentro dos próximos meses e, possivelmente, anos, é oportuno indagar: quais seriam os efeitos causados pela nova onda de insolvências em arbitragens brasileiras e internacionais? Veja nossos comentários no documento abaixo.

On January 7, 2013, the Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a dispute concerning the debtors’ use of cash collateral was not subject to arbitration, notwithstanding a broad arbitration clause in the parties’ underlying agreement, because the decision to allow a debtor to use cash collateral constituted a “core” issue and was a fundamental aspect of the bankruptcy process. In re Hostess Brands, Inc., No. 12-22052 (RDD), 2013 WL 82914 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013).

Background

In Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Moran Towing Corp. (In re Bethlehem Steel Corp.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that preferential transfer claims were not arbitrable. The Court reasoned that because the avoidance powers did not belong to the debtor, but rather were creditor claims that could only be brought by a trustee or debtor-in-possession, they were not subject to the arbitration clauses in contracts to which the creditors were not parties.

The Dispute and the Arbitration Clauses