In this article we consider how the current challenging environment is impacting M&A in the insurance sector
We are living in volatile times. As a consequence of the COVID-19 virus, our equity and high-yield markets have witnessed large swings, making it difficult to value assets. Uncertainty over the timing and extent of the recovery has also made it difficult to value income streams. Moreover, debt financing has become more challenging. All of these factors are contributing to a challenging environment for M&A.
Another Hong Kong court decision has questioned whether the judgment in the leading case of Lasmos Limited v. Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426, may have gone too far when it suggested that an arbitration clause in an agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.
Die Möglichkeiten durch das Gesetz zur Abmilderung der Folgen der COVID-19-Pandemie im Zivil-, Insolvenz- und Strafverfahrensrecht für Startups.
Almost a decade into the current bull market, many economic prognosticators are warning of a coming downturn. At the same time, political upheaval and uncertainty around the world is changing the landscape for cross-border trade—including mergers and acquisitions activity. Hogan Lovells partners Richard L. Wynne and David A. Gibbons recently discussed how that macro environment is impacting distressed M&A today, and what steps business leaders and dealmakers should be taking to prepare for a shift in the economic winds.
The U.S. is one of the easiest jurisdictions in the world in which to do business.1 Regulatory barriers are generally low, establishing a branch or business entity is quick and easy, labor and employment laws are much more employer-friendly than in most other developed economies, and the legal system is well-developed and transparent. However, there are certain barriers to entry and challenges to doing business that should be taken into account before investing or establishing operations in the U.S. This publication provides an overview of trade control issues that could limit a non-U.S.
The Recast Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 governs cross-border insolvency proceedings within the European Union. It provides in particular for the opening of the main proceedings by the jurisdiction of the member state where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is located (presumed to be the place of its registered office) and the opening of one or more secondary proceedings in the member states where the debtor possesses an establishment.
On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split under the Bankruptcy Code and determined that where funds passed through financial institutions acting as payment conduits, where the ultimate transfer sought to be avoided was not the type of transaction protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the safe harbor provisions of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), shielding transfers through financial institutions from avoidance actions by bankruptcy trustees, was inapplicable.
On September 18, 2017, the iconic US-based retailer Toys “R” Us filed for Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in front of Judge Keith L. Phillips. The company filed twenty-five entities, explaining that its $5.3 billion debt obligations and operational issues had led to the need for reorganization.
It has long been a bone of contention for landlords that tenants can simply file a notice of intention to appoint administrators in order to get an automatic moratorium against any enforcement action. This prevents a landlord from forfeiting, suing or exercising CRAR irrespective of whether the tenant goes into administration and, seemingly, whether it ever really had such an intention.
The last two months have seen two key appeals in which the court was required to decide whether the tenant of a particular type of building should enjoy the statutory right to acquire the freehold of a house. This right is enshrined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
The properties, and the questions for the court in each case, were quite different. What the judgments had in common was a purposive approach to interpretation of the Act.