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.

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.

On 24 March 2020, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 received Royal Assent, meaning that the changes proposed in that bill to "lessen the threat of insolvency" for individuals and businesses in the current coronavirus pandemic have now become law. The changes will be in place for a period of six months starting from today and ending on 25 September 2020, unless this grace period is extended in the future.

By way of summary, the legislative changes involve the following measures:

“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.

As part of its second stimulus package in response to the developing novel coronavirus pandemic announced on 22 March 2020, the Australian Government has extended a lifeline to individuals and businesses facing financial distress by way of temporary changes to the laws of insolvency. There are four key features of the changes.

1. Temporary changes to creditor's statutory demands laws

With the rampant spread of COVID-19 worldwide, there are increasing concerns as to the financial impact of the outbreak. With forced business closures a potential reality, it seems inevitable that the Australian economy is on its way to a recession.

It is therefore critical that directors of companies are fully aware of the extent of their duties and understand what they must do to comply.

On 4 February 2020, the Federal Court of Australia considered the circumstances in which it might be said that a provisional liquidator of a company ought not be appointed as the official liquidator because of an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias". The issue was ventilated before the Court in the matter of  Frisken (as receiver of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98.

Appointing a provisional liquidator

Entering into liquidation can be a scary time for any company and its officers, even one which chooses to do so voluntarily. However, the directors, shareholders and creditors of a company entering into liquidation do not have absolute discretion as to who they may appoint as the liquidator of the company. Together, the Corporations Act and common law principles of independence regulate the eligibility of a liquidator to be appointed to a company, and to remain in the appointment.

Overarching eligibility

What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?