Among the only certainties for the post-COVID lending world is the uncertainty of commercial real estate values. Among the classes of real estate that surely will be immediately diminished in value are hospitality and most brick and mortar retail, but even the value of industrial and office properties will be closely scrutinized as questions are posed regarding changes in how companies conduct their businesses and which types of businesses will recover most fully.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is causing an unprecedented negative impact on businesses around the globe in nearly every sector of the economy. Both the US Government as well as Foreign Governments have and will continue to provide short- and long-term financial support to these businesses. However, this financial assistance will not be available to every business, nor will it be adequate in all instances to offset decreased revenue resulting directly and indirectly from the pandemic.

In a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.

On March 25, 2020, the Senate passed an amendment to H.R. 748, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (as amended, the “CARES Act”), which (as of March 26, 2020) is being considered in the House.

The complete text of the current draft of the CARES Act can be found here.

The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked” – Warren Buffet

The tide has gone out on the municipal finance market.

While much of the discussion about the financial fall-out of the COVID-19 virus has focused on the massive wealth destruction in stock markets and pressure on corporates around the world, the impact on the largest financial market in the world- the $3 trillion US municipal finance market- cannot be ignored. Simply put, the market is imploding.

In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.