The European Commission decided on 5 July 2021 to open an in-depth investigation into the restructuring plan of the airline TAROM notified by Romania in May 2021, as well as into the EUR 190 million aid to support it under the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring undertakings in difficulty.

The Romanian airline TAROM has been in financial difficulties for many years. In February 2020, the Commission approved rescue aid of EUR 36.7 million in favour of the airline in the context of a Romanian notification.

Swissport Belgium, one of the two licensed ground handling service providers at Brussels Airport, was declared bankrupt in June 2020, three months after the airport's operations were interrupted due to measures adopted by the Belgian government to limit the spread of COVID-19. Nearly 1,500 workers lost their jobs.

In order to support these workers, Belgium applied for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help these redundant workers back into employment (especially those with no professional qualifications or with a low level of education).

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines may escape fines from the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) notwithstanding the conclusion of an agreement providing for anticompetitive practices according to the Investigation and Prosecution Service of the Authority.

In August 2017, the BCA had opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive practices resulting from the conclusion of a "Commercial Service Agreement" between Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following:

The Court of Appeal in 90 Nine Limited v Luxury Rentals NZ Limited [2019] NZCA 424 allowed an appeal from a creditor in respect of an application to liquidate the respondent over a failure to pay a statutory demand.

The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.