“Your Courage, Your Cheerfulness, Your Resolution; Will Bring Us Victory” – Ministry of Information, 1939
The phrase “unprecedented times” seems to crop up in almost every recent article and news report and there is no doubt that it is a true statement. It is therefore rather nice that some things are reassuringly the same. This is true of my recent experience of advising on a number of adjudications, in this period of lock-down.
In the current climate, it is expected that thousands of business will enter administration and Administrators will need to assess each administration on its merits to see if it is appropriate to adopt a light touch approach.
As a result of the unprecedented situation that is being faced by businesses due to the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns there have been many discussions within the insolvency and legal sectors about how best to rescue struggling businesses.
A demerger is the process through which a single business entity is divided into separate companies or groups of companies. There are a number of motivations behind a demerger, such as resolving shareholder disputes, separating different elements of a business and improving the value of an element of a single business that has previously been eclipsed within the current corporate structure. On account of the rigid legislation governing companies within the UK, it is vital that the correct methodology for carrying out a demerger is used.
In previous weeks our Financial Services Updates have discussed certain proactive measures that lenders and borrowers can take in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. This week our update focuses on the ability of companies to terminate contracts in accordance with their provisions or disclaim or resiliate contracts in the context of a restructuring.
Re Debenhams Retail Limited [2020] EWHC 921 (Ch)
The Situation: In the past few weeks, due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 crisis on non-essential businesses forced to close and terminate employees after filing for chapter 11 protection, bankruptcy courts have been confronted with requests by debtors to temporarily suspend their bankruptcy cases using the courts' equitable powers and a seldom-used provision of the Bankruptcy Code: 11 U.S.C. § 305(a).
Thomas Williams, Ahmed Durrani and Umang Singh, Sultan Al-Abdulla & Partners
This is an extract from the 2020 edition of GAR’s Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review . The whole publication is available here.
Introduction
The tragically unforeseen current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Hong Kong society including the health of its citizens, the economy and the business community.
An issue plaguing successful resolution applicants under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is with respect to government claims pertaining to the period prior to approval of the Resolution Plan. Government claims, such as those raised by the Income Tax Department, Central and State GST Department, extinguished by resolution plans continue to be pursued by such departments by way of issuance of demand notices under respective statutes.
In a recent decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rejection by a licensor of a trademark license stripped the licensee of its right to use the trademark post-rejection, reversing a decision by the intermediate bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) and reinstating the bankruptcy court’s original judgment. In re Tempnology, LLC, 2018 WL 387621 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), reversing in part 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016). The First Circuit did, however, affirm that the rejection stripped the licensee's exclusive product distribution rights.