The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has recently issued welcome guidance on how the impact of COVID-19 will be considered by the ODCE when evaluating potential restriction cases in respect of directors of insolvent companies – see here.

The impact of COVID-19 is being felt at all levels of the economy and will work its way through bankruptcy courts for years to come. In these early days, many creditors who are themselves suffering are providing assistance to troubled companies. Suppliers and commercial landlords are agreeing to various forms of relief, including modified credit terms and rent relief to allow customers to bridge this period of unprecedented disruption. While these corporate good Samaritans are providing immediate aid they may be subjecting themselves to the risk of future losses.

The Revenue Commissioners have issued some recent welcome clarifications about certain provisions of the Government's temporary wage subsidy scheme.

Application for the Subsidy Scheme – An Admission of Insolvency?

The main provisions of the subsidy scheme are set out in Section 28 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.

That section also contains the criteria for an employer's eligibility to avail of the subsidy scheme. One such criterion is that:

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

Last week, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law, implementing broad relief for individuals and businesses affected by COVID-19. One of the sections of the CARES Act receiving less attention is a temporary amendment to the Bankruptcy Code to provide streamlined reorganization procedures for businesses with debt of less than $7.5 million.

As the nation hunkers down to combat the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bankruptcy courts throughout the country have moved quickly to implement procedures to preserve access to the courts while limiting in-person interaction during the crisis. Each court’s specific COVID-19 procedures are different, but they largely prohibit in-person hearings, recognize the need for flexibility and adjournments for non-emergent matters whenever possible, and encourage the creative use of technology to allow as many matters to go forward as scheduled, including evidentiary hearings.

Social distancing. Elbow bumps. Flatten the curve. These are the new phrases and behaviors we have learned to avoid exposure to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This epic struggle forces us to reexamine and reevaluate our daily habits, lifestyles and customs as we work collectively to minimize the harm to our families, friends and neighbors throughout the United States.

In the case of Wilson v McNamara [2020] EWHC 98 (Ch) the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) considered whether the EU principle of freedom of establishment requires that a pension held in another EU member state (Ireland) should be excluded from a bankruptcy estate under UK law in the same manner as a UK pension would be in a UK bankruptcy. Mr Justice Nugee decided in order to decide the case the Court needed to refer a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on a question of EU law.

On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 18-1269 (U.S. 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that the so-called “Bob Richards rule” should not be used to determine which member of a group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a federal income tax refund.

A recent English Court of Appeal decision has held that legal advice privilege, once established, remains in existence unless and until it is waived. Whether there is no one to waive it; or whether the Crown could have waived it but has not done so; does not matter.

What was the Background to the Case?