Although in some jurisdictions arbitration is a long-established form of alternative dispute resolution, this mechanism has only recently been regulated in Brazil. The Brazilian Commercial Code, enacted in 1850, already included a few sparse provisions regarding commercial arbitration, but there were no references to specific rules. It was not until 1996 that Brazil passed its first specific arbitration statute, Law No. 9,307/96 (Arbitration Law).

In the United States, in a typical plain vanilla lending arrangement, if a counterparty files for bankruptcy, an automatic stay of enforcement actions is imposed that would prevent a lender from (i) foreclosing on the property of the debtor, (ii) terminating contracts with the debtor, (iii) commencing or continuing certain enforcement actions against the debtor or its property and/or (iv) setting off amounts owed under such arrangements (in each case unless a motion is filed and granted in the related bankruptcy case).

German insolvency law is governed by a comprehensive Insolvency Code which entered into force on January 1, 1999 and has been amended from time to time, the last major reform being the Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies (ESUG) which largely came into force as of 1 March 2012. There is only one primary uniform insolvency procedure which applies to both individuals and companies. In the following, we focus on companies.

The impact of insolvency proceedings on arbitral proceedings is becoming an increasingly important consideration for parties. Two scenarios can be generally envisioned: (i) a company files for insolvency while it is engaged in arbitral proceedings; or (ii) arbitral proceedings are initiated after insolvency proceedings have commenced. In both scenarios, the parties need to assess how the insolvency proceeding affects the arbitral proceedings. This article assesses the impact of insolvency proceedings initiated in Germany on foreign arbitral proceedings.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Chapter 11 filing earlier this year has highlighted an issue that is well settled but sometimes overlooked: Unsecured creditors generally have no right to receive immediate payment of their legal fees from a bankrupt borrower, regardless of any contractual rights they might otherwise have absent the bankruptcy.

As many will know, a failure to “...do all that is reasonable for the purpose of bringing the statutory demand to the debtor’s attention...” may result in an annulment of a bankruptcy order. But how is this requirement of Rule 46 of the Bankruptcy Rules met?

The question of what happens to an international arbitration when a party files for bankruptcy in the United States is arising with increasing frequency. In the United States, the public policy interests that underlie both bankruptcy and arbitration legislation sometimes clash on critical points. The federal courts have developed competing approaches to addressing these issues. This fractured caselaw introduces uncertainty at the intersection of arbitration and bankruptcy.

US Bankruptcy Code

Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489

Today, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that a creditor cannot be held in contempt of court for violating a bankruptcy discharge order if there is a “fair ground of doubt” as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.

On December 13, 2011, the Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies (ESUG), whose material provisions will come into force on March 1, 2012, was announced in the Federal Gazette. The ESUG bundles several reformatory efforts with regard to German insolvency law and will likely have significant effects on the daily practice. Generally, the restructuring of companies in financial crisis will be made easier. The creditors’ influence on the proceedings, including the selection of the person of the insolvency administrator, is increased.

In the case of In re: Exide Technologies, decided on June 1, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed two lower court decisions and held that a 1991 agreement between Exide Technologies and EnerSys Delaware Inc., which included a license to EnerSys for use of the “EXIDE” trademark, is not an executory contract that can be rejected by Exide in bankruptcy proceedings.