On 28 March 2020, the Government proposed certain insolvency law reforms in response to the COVID-19 crisis, including a temporary suspension of wrongful trading provisions for company directors.
The measures are intended to apply retrospectively from 1 March 2020 for three months, and aim to encourage directors to continue to trade during the pandemic.
This is the second litigation involving the furlough scheme in the insolvency context, following on from Re Carluccio's (in administration). Please refer to our note on Carluccio's for background reading on how the furlough scheme weaves into insolvency law.
Issue
In the first litigation involving the Furlough scheme, the court in Re Carluccio's (in administration) ruled on how the administrators can lawfully give effect to furlough arrangements with the employees who have agreed to the variation of their employment contract.
Read on for our analysis of the case which gives an interesting insight into how the courts in the future might interpret the furlough scheme.
1. Background
Carluccio’s in administration
GENERAL INSOLVENCY LANDSCAPE IN GERMANY PRE-COVID-19
Without undue delay upon occurrence of illiquidity or overindebtedness, at the latest within three weeks, members of the representing body of a legal entity have to apply for the opening of insolvency proceedings over the assets of such entity
INSOLVENCY REASONS:
CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE – INTRODUCING FLEXIBILITY TO DIRECTORS' DUTIES?
IN LIGHT OF COVID-19, THE UK GOVERNMENT RECENTLY ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND THE OFFENCE OF WRONGFUL TRADING BY DIRECTORS OF UK COMPANIES. THIS WILL INEVITABLY HAVE A WIDE-RANGING EFFECT ON BOTH DIRECTORS AND CREDITORS.
The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (the Act) will have a considerable impact on the enforcement of certain contracts and commercial disputes in Singapore for the next 6 to 12 months. The Act was passed by the Singapore Parliament, and commenced on the same day, 7 April 2020.
The key measures of the Act are:
The Act is meant to give temporary relief to financially distressed individuals, firms and businesses who are facing challenges imposed by COVID-19 but who are otherwise viable and profitable.
It is unsurprising that many of the Act’s sections expressly refer to the relevant provisions of the personal and corporate insolvency legislation applicable in Singapore. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Act refers expressly to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (“IRDA”). This warrants some explanation.
Whilst no further action has, as yet, been taken to implement the foreshadowed changes to insolvency law in England and Wales (see our comments on the same), the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales ("BPC") have moved quickly to release a temporary Practice Direction on insolvency proceedings ("TIPD").
As the prevalence of COVID-19 continues to grow worldwide, together with the resulting social and business restrictions, the inevitable fallout will be a failure to achieve business plans and an increase in business insolvencies.
The UK Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, stated whilst unveiling recent plans for a £330bn economic boost in light of the pandemic, “this is an economic emergency. Never in peacetime have we faced an economic fight like this one".
With the impact of COVID-19 rapidly being felt by businesses, 2020 is likely to see a number of Australian insureds face insolvency. While this presents a number of challenges for (re)insurers in the Australian market, there are steps that (re)insurers can take to manage the situation and their exposures.