In continuation of Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) efforts to ease financial stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the RBI issued the circular on the Resolution Framework for Covid-19 Related Stress dated 6 August 2020 (August 6 Circular). The August 6 Circular creates a limited time window for certain categories of borrowers affected by Covid-19 pandemic related business disruption to be allowed resolution plans in the nature of restructuring while permitting the borrower accounts to retain their status as ‘standard’.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

It is so obvious to say, but suppliers want to be paid for the goods or services they supply, and we are living in highly uncertain times with suppliers increasingly concerned about the ability of customers (or clients) to pay.

A new law recently came into force that has major implications for suppliers and what they can include in their contracts to protect themselves. Suppliers need to review and update their existing and new contracts as a result.

What Does the New Law Do?

Many companies are under financial pressure in the COVID-19 era as a result of revenue substantially reducing, debts not being paid when due and supply chains being disrupted. Even companies with financial reserves are finding themselves under pressure as measures taken by state and the Federal governments to reduce the spread of the virus are expanded and extended.

• The Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act (CGIA) came into force on 26 June 2020, with the intention of providing businesses in financial difficulty with flexibility and breathing space and additional assistance (such as the protection of supplies) in order to maximise their chances of survival.
• It contains a number of provisions which will impact on construction contracts and professional appointments, in particular on the rights of a supplier under a contract for the supply of goods and services (e.g.

This two-part blog series discusses why buyers looking to make strategic purchases in the health care industry might want to take advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (363 Sale) and the pros and cons of buying assets out of bankruptcy through a 363 Sale.

In preparation for a post COVID-19 world, Chinese outbound investors have begun to source for bargain deals in other countries, with markets characterised by corporate restructurings, low prices, depressed valuations, distressed assets, and fire sales. In this article, we briefly set out some suggestions for Chinese outbound investors when entering into bargain M&A deals in this unprecedented M&A landscape.

On 25 June 2020, new legislation came into force in the UK which makes it much more difficult for suppliers to terminate contracts where the customer is subject to an insolvency procedure. In this briefing, we highlight the key issues that both suppliers and customers should be aware of and consider whether you should amend termination provisions in new contracts.

A new Act, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, restricts many suppliers’ rights to exit commercial agreements due to restructuring or insolvency-related causes, even where those rights are expressly set out in the contract.

Since the release of the film Titanic in 1997, debate has persisted whether Rose could have shifted over slightly to let Jack onto the driftwood after they found themselves thrown from the sinking ship into the North Atlantic. Was there space? Would they both have frozen? Who knows.

In the case of 1842752 Ontario Inc. v. Fortress Wismer 3-2011 Ltd.[1](the "Fortress Case"), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a judgment creditor is not entitled to enforce a writ of seizure and sale against a registered owner that beneficially holds land in trust for a judgment debtor, nor to priority over arm's length construction financing.