In the following, we provide an overview of government assistance that has already been implemented or is planned to mitigate the effects of COVID-19. The KfW Special Program is available as of March 23, 2020 and applications can be submitted. Please be advised that changes may occur at any time.
We are happy to assist you as you move forward and design a targeted and tailor-made reaction to the current challenges.
In response to the global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments in many countries have issued emergency legislation to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on companies’ day-to-day operations. Since March 24, 2020, the Indian government has been announcing various measures aimed to ease corporate and tax compliance for companies doing business in India, as well as other measures pertaining to employment and bankruptcy matters. Below is a high-level overview of some of the most relevant aspects of these measures as they pertain to India subsidiaries of US companies.
In response to the coronavirus outbreak, a number of government and central bank measures are available to businesses in Europe. Additionally, insolvency laws have been updated. Our guidance outlines what this means to businesses in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and UK.
The outbreak of coronavirus COVID-19 represents one of the most significant global public health crises in recent memory and is causing major disruption and unprecedented volatility in markets, economies and businesses. With such great social and economic uncertainty, it is inevitable that existing financial arrangements will be affected and asset-based lenders (ABLs) are not immune to this. They are, however, uniquely positioned – given the flexibility of the products they offer – to react to the ever-changing economic landscape.
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.
The Australian Government has passed the "Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020". The new legislation was announced on Sunday 22 March 2020 and was fast tracked through parliament as part of the Australian Government's response to the economic impact of COVID-19.
While the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is as of yet uncertain, one thing is clear: the global outbreak of COVID-19 has caused − and will likely continue to cause − a precipitous decrease in demand and supply as a result of quarantine orders, business closures, and social distancing, all aimed at flattening the curve of the pandemic. As a result, a dramatic and pronounced economic downturn is predicted as the pandemic’s impact touches virtually all businesses, regardless of geography or industry.
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.
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.
On January 17, 2020, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that the Alberta Securities Commission’s (the “ASC”) administrative penalties against Theodor Hennig (“Hennig”) survived Hennig’s discharge in bankruptcy. This decision marks the first time a Canadian court has considered securities regulatory penalties within the context of subsection 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).