Our emergence from social and economic lockdown has led to much discussion around “the new normal” for our personal and business lives. In that context, the Courts Service Annual Report for 2019 (“the 2019 Report”) published in July 2020 is an opportunity to look back upon the pre-COVID-19 operation of civil and criminal litigation in the Irish courts, particularly developments on the debt recovery site.

Late in the evening on 30 July, the last day before its summer break, the Irish parliament (Oireachtas) passed the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Bill 2020. This is likely to be signed into law and commenced within two weeks.

Three of its provisions are particularly relevant to insolvency processes during the COVID-19 crisis.

Creditors’ meetings

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.

The Irish Government has published the General Scheme of a Bill and related secondary legislation to address practical issues that have arisen for companies and cooperative societies as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. We examine the scope of the measures and next steps for entities that can avail of its provisions.

Duration of proposed temporary measures

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.

For many companies facing financial stress, restructuring liabilities is the only way for their business to survive. Consensual restructuring, or voluntary workout, requires agreement from creditors to reorganise the company’s liabilities, and is typically implemented by agreement between the company and its creditors. Court-based restructuring processes, on the other hand, involve at least some degree of legal coercion of creditors to vary or release liabilities.

Notwithstanding the phased return to some level of normality, some businesses will continue to be significantly affected, particularly those in the leisure, travel/tourism, retail and hospitality sectors. These sectors will face longer term challenges due to social distancing requirements, consumer unease and the likely absence of international travel for many months, or perhaps even longer. However, these are not the only sectors that will suffer.

The High Court recently refused to grant an order sought by a Revenue-appointed liquidator, requiring Google Ireland to provide him with access to a private Gmail account. The Gmail account in question was believed to have been operated by the liquidated company. For their part, Google strongly resisted the liquidator’s application, citing concerns over protecting the privacy of individuals. It argued that the liquidator was seeking access to the entirety of the Gmail account which could contain diary entries and photographs as well as emails.

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.