One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act on March 27 was the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. Under the program, small businesses (e.g., those with fewer than 500 employees) — and certain other businesses in specific industries — are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the program, including applying at least 75% of the funds received from the loans to payment of payroll expenses.

One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) was the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Under the PPP, small businesses (businesses with fewer than 500 employees) are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the Program, including applying at least 75% of the loans to payroll. The loans may also be used for payment of interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP loans are capped at $10 million for each small business.

During the COVID-19 crisis, many companies are facing unexpected financial distress, and taking steps to stabilise their business and bolster their finances.

Many directors will not have experienced these issues before, and should be aware of how their duties are impacted when the company is in financial distress.

This guide has been prepared on the basis of Hong Kong law principles. Many of the principles will also be applicable to other common law jurisdictions.

How are companies responding to the current crisis?

In Joint Provisional Liquidators of Moody Technology Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 416, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the “Hong KongCourt”) granted a recognition order to foreign provisional liquidators who were appointed on a soft-touch basis, to explore and facilitate the restructuring of a company. The order was made despite soft-touch provisional liquidation being per se impermissible in Hong Kong.

Background

The principle in ex parte James, under which the Court will not permit its officers (such as a liquidator) to act in a way which, although lawful, does not accord with the standards of right-thinking people, has recently been clarified by the English Court of Appeal in Lehman Brothers Australia Limited (in liquidation) v Edward John Macnamara & others (the joint administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)) [2020] EWCA Civ 321

In a long-awaited development of cross-border insolvency cooperation between Hong Kong and Mainland China, the Hong Kong Court has granted recognition and assistance to Mainland liquidators for the first time in Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167.

Background

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a safe harbor provision that establishes that a trustee or debtor-in-possession may not avoid a transfer “by or to... a financial institution.. in connection with a securities contract” other than under an intentional fraudulent conveyance theory. On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit in Note Holders v.

The Bankruptcy Protector has previously provided a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevichere and

The Court of First Instance has recently helpfully summarised the legal position on schemes of arrangement under both Hong Kong law and English law. Notably, it has called for further development in cross-border coordination in order to avoid the trouble of parallel insolvency proceedings and it has raised a red flag in relation to detailed disclosure of restructuring costs: Da Yu Financial Holdings Limited [2019] HKCFI 2531.

This article first appeared in Law360.