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.

Directors will soon be free to make decisions to trade on even insolvent entities, and incur debts in the ordinary course of business, with the passing of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 last night and Royal Assent today. The Act is intended to encourage business to continue trading free of risk that insolvent trading laws – which prevent directors of insolvent companies incurring fresh debt – would impose a personal civil and criminal liability on them. There are also changes to statutory demands and debtor's petitions.

ASIC is becoming more serious and more active and will take action against directors if there is su cient reason to, so insolvency practitioners should consider all possible actions/recoveries fully in any report to ASIC. 

A company's financial distress presents a challenge for its directors and officers of large and complex financial services companies and can raise a range of difficult issues, including potential liability for insolvent trading, which potentially exposes directors both to civil and criminal consequences under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth).

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.

The equitable doctrine of marshalling can protect the security interests of subordinate secured creditors when a debtor becomes insolvent.

Marshalling is a neglected tool in the insolvency toolbox, but it can play an important role in protecting the security interests of subordinate secured creditors.

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.

Directors are first and foremost responsible to the company as a whole and must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. The reference to "acting in the best interests of the company" has generally been interpreted to mean the collective financial interests of the shareholders.

Payment of priority creditors under section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is an activity conventionally performed by liquidators, albeit the section is silent as to the holder of the relevant payment obligation. The Federal Court of Australia has recently confirmed that distributions to priority (employee) creditors are not the exclusive purview of liquidators (where receivers are appointed contemporaneously); receivers may exercise the powers contained in section 561 to distribute certain funds to such priority creditors.