With the fourth law on COVID-19, the Austrian legislator has suspended the obligation of an overindebted debtor to file for insolvency until 30 June 2020, irrespective of the cause of the over-indebtedness. Some other countries in the CEE region have also adopted measures to combat the consequences of COVID-19 as detailed in the following overview:
Die COVID-19-Pandemie und deren wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen führten bisher zu insgesamt fünf umfassenden COVID-19 Gesetzespaketen. Darunter finden sich ua Änderungen im Insolvenz-, Anfechtungs- und Eigenkapitalersatzrecht, mit denen die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie adressiert werden sollen. Ein erster Schritt in die richtige Richtung, weitere insolvenzrechtliche Anpassungen werden aber folgen müssen. Im Folgenden wird ein Überblick über die wesentlichen insolvenzrechtlichen Änderungen gegeben.
Verlängerte Insolvenzantragsfrist
Surfant sur les tensions du marché mondial des produits de protection sanitaire et leurs composants, les escrocs développent les fraudes aux fournisseurs.
Ayant choisi leur interlocuteur et se faisant passer pour un fournisseur habituel de la société ou une société détenant ces produits ou composants sous tension, ils développent une stratégie fondée sur la rareté et l’urgence pour faire effectuer sans délai des virements pour sécuriser les contrats.
Les règles de prudence doivent être d’autant plus respectées :
Bulgaria has been in a state of emergency since 13 March due to the COVID-19 outbreak. On 23 March the Parliament voted on a special State of Emergency Act (COVID-19 Act) which suspended all court, arbitration and enforcement terms and proceedings during the state of emergency, currently in force until 13 April.
On 14 March 2020, the Croatian Ministry of Justice issued recommendations to prevent the transmission of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and control the pandemic ("Measures"). The Measures are applicable until 1 April 2020. The Measures advise temporary adjustments to legal requirements in civil, insolvency and criminal procedure law to avoid hardship that would otherwise arise as a result of the coronavirus crisis.
With the aim of further mitigating the negative effects of the crisis on companies and private individuals, the Measures advise the following:
On March 27, the president signed into law Phase 3 of the federal stimulus program, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act. Title I of the act, titled the Keeping American Workers Paid and Employed Act (KAWPEA), directs, among other amounts, $349 billion to small businesses as part of an expansion of the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 7(a) loan program under a new paycheck protection loan program (PPP) as well as $10 billion through an expansion to the SBA’s Section 7(b) economic injury disaster loan (EIDL) program.
The question is not if but how deeply the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic will disrupt businesses and impact future operations. That answer differs based upon each company’s industry, access to cash and other capital, debt structure, ability to manage expenses, lost revenues, and operational interruption. Certain industries, such as airlines and airline service companies, hotels, restaurants, sports and entertainment, media, and retailers, among others, are suffering immediate adverse effects. Our healthcare resources are being stretched thin.
What: This evening, March 19, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act. The proposed bill is intended to provide relief to various sectors of the U.S. economy. Of particular interest is the Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act of 2020, set forth in Division C, Title I of the proposed bill, which provides assistance to severely distressed sectors of the U.S. economy, including (but not limited to) airline carriers.
Who Does This Impact:
In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.
General Legal Background