Bankruptcy experts are applauding a proposed change to the Paycheck Protection Program that will allow small business debtors to access loans under federal COVID-19 relief packages, correcting what they say was a mistake in early versions of the aid program that left bankrupt companies without a valuable tool for surviving the pandemic.

Winding up a company – liquidation – applies in circumstances where a company is unable to pay its debts. In that situation, the company's directors, creditors or contributories can present a winding up petition. (This can be found in sections 122, 123 and 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986.)

A company is deemed unable to pay its debts if:

It is not uncommon for a person's job title to include the word "director", such as "Finance Director" or "Marketing Director". While such roles will carry a high level of responsibility, the individuals in these positions are not always formally appointed to the company's Board of directors. Even though such persons are not formally appointed as directors, they may still owe all (or at least some) of the same directors' duties as an appointed director.

On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dealt a blow to debtors seeking Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). In a decision entered on Monday, June 22, Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Jovita Carranza (In re Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation) that could have long-lasting ramifications for many debtors, both in and outside of the Fifth Circuit.

Final amendments to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill were approved by the House of Lords on 23 June 2020, and by the House of Commons on 25 June 2020. The Act came into force on 26 June 2020, however certain provisions have retrospective effect from 1 March 2020. It will have a significant impact on defined benefit pension schemes, and the ability of pension scheme trustees to take action if the scheme's employer is struggling. This legal update explores the Act's key provisions through a pensions lens.

Creditors and Coronavirus

As the scale of the economic impact on businesses and individuals of the Coronavirus pandemic becomes apparent, the Scottish and UK governments have sought to protect companies and individuals from creditor led insolvency events.

Bankruptcy:

In previous blogs, we’ve discussed the temporary changes to the law being brought about by the UK Government’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. The Bill is set to strip Landlords of some of the tools available to recover arrears from their tenants. It will render statutory demands served between 1 March to 30 June 2020 ineffective, while making it near impossible for landlords to liquidate tenants (by winding them up) if they have been financially affected by COVID-19.

In previous blogs, we’ve discussed the temporary changes to the law being brought about by the UK Government’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. The Bill is set to strip Landlords of some of the tools available to recover arrears from their tenants. It will render statutory demands served between 1 March to 30 June 2020 ineffective, while making it near impossible for landlords to liquidate tenants (by winding them up) if they have been financially affected by COVID-19.

In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.