On 28 March, UK Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced that the rules relating to ‘wrongful trading’ will be suspended on account of the issues that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents.

Both the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by governments have led to unprecedented legal questions that require immediate attention and solutions. These are challenging times. We have therefore prepared the following overview of some of the pertinent legal questions and the answers to consider, in the hope they provide useful preliminary guidance.

On 23 March 2020, the German Federal Cabinet adopted further urgent measures to mitigate the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The package of measures includes an emergency aid programme for micro-enterprises, self-employed persons and freelancers of up to EUR 50 billion and an economic stabilisation fund of EUR 600 billion as well as a Law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil law, insolvency law and criminal proceedings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented economic disruption, creating sudden financial distress across industries. Companies are now facing impacts ranging from a dramatic decline in revenue of uncertain duration, to potential setbacks to M&A transactions, to delayed or canceled financing rounds.

With even some previously well-performing companies potentially entering the so-called zone of insolvency, it’s important to review the fiduciary duties owed by directors and officers and how discharging those duties may change in the face of financial distress.

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch (Rodriquez v. FDIC No 18-12690), the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (In reUnited Western Bancorp, Inc., 914 F. 3d 1262 (10th Cir, 2019)) that awarded a federal income tax refund of a failed bank to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver.

A decision this month out of the Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan (SDNY) could have a significant impact on the market for student loan securitizations. Student loan asset-backed securities (SLABS) are unsecured, but market participants typically assume that the underlying student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. A new ruling by the chief judge of the SDNY’s Bankruptcy Court challenges this assumption.

Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

Only A Few Rule Amendments This Year. Unlike previous years, there are only four rule amendments expected to take effect on December 1, 2019. Here they are:

EMPLOYMENT (news)

Diversity in boards of larger companies

Targets (i.e., at least 30% women) imposed by Dutch law for a more balanced composition of the executive and supervisory boards of ‘large’ companies shall cease to exist as of 2020. A ‘large’ company is a company that meets two of the following requirements: (i) EUR 20 mio balance sheet total; (ii) net turnover of EUR 40 mio; and (iii) 250 employees. This does not, however, mean that diversity is no longer on the agenda of the Dutch Government.

A Big Answer To A Big Question. After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Here’s the question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC case:

The US Supreme Court decided what the International Trademark Association (INTA) called "the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing" when it ruled on May 20, 2019, that bankrupt companies cannot use bankruptcy law to revoke a trademark license.

In its 8-1 decision, the court resolved a circuit split by holding that a debtor's rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to "reject any executory contract" (a contract that neither party has finished performing), amounts only to a breach of the license.