With courts and government agencies around the world enacting emergency measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic – ranging from complete shutdowns to delays and limitations – advancing the ball in dispute resolution is more challenging than ever. Because fraud investigations and complex asset recovery matters are typically managed by litigation counsel and often follow litigated claims, clients have a tendency to see the effort through a litigation lens.

In a recent decision addressing valuation issues, the First Circuit has issued an important reminder – and warning – to creditors seeking to establish a secured claim in settlement proceeds based on a security interest in the settled claim. In short, the key lesson for would-be secured creditors is this – the value of a claim is not equal to the value of damages!

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 global COVID-19 pandemic has created uncertainty around the planned deal-making activities of many middle market private equity funds. However, this environment also creates significant opportunity to provide investment and financing to companies that find themselves in distressed circumstances.

Background

As many traditional private company buyers take a “wait and see” approach to dealmaking, pausing or cancelling their active transactions, many are scanning the horizons for new opportunities outside of their traditional comfort zones. In addition to scoping targets in COVID-19–relevant industries, many are looking for unique value propositions and approaching historically healthy and stable targets that are experiencing distress during the pandemic.

President Trump signed the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”) into law in August of last year and it became effective on February 20, 2020. The SBRA amended the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and is designed to simplify and shorten the reorganization process for “small businesses” and to make the entire process more cost effective. At the same time that the SBRA was coming online, the U.S. economy experienced a severe downturn as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

It has long been the law that creditors are rarely entitled to contractually prohibit a debtor from filing for bankruptcy, whether such restriction is contained in the debt instruments or in the corporate governance documents. In contrast, governance provisions which condition a bankruptcy filing on the vote or consent of certain equity holders that are unaffiliated with any creditor are frequently enforced. Many equity sponsors, for example, wear two hats: they are both shareholders and lenders to their portfolio companies.

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?

In French v. Linn Energy, L.L.C. (In re Linn Energy, L.L.C.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the scope of Bankruptcy Code Section 510(b), settling on an expansive reading of the Section, holding that a claim for “deemed dividends” should be subordinated.