The UK Government announced on 24 September 2020 that some of the temporary COVID-19 measures within the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) will be extended.
The effect of the extension is as follows:
For years, small business debtors have struggled with the intricacies of Chapter 11, the debt limitations of Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidations. Stringent requirements and procedural hurdles often made restructuring a prohibitively expensive option for many small business debtors. Congress attempted to address these issues with H.R. 3311, the Small Business Reorganization Act (the “SBRA”). The SBRA, which was signed into law on August 23, 2019, creates a new subchapter, Subchapter V, of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
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.
On 25 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) received Royal Assent and it now forms part of UK law. Among other provisions, the Act addresses the difficulties faced by UK companies as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when it comes to holding meetings of shareholders and filing documents with the UK Registrar of Companies (Companies House).
The Act includes the following in relation to company meetings and filings:
Meetings
Die Geltung von Tarifverträgen kann nicht davon abhängig gemacht werden, dass die Arbeitsvertragsparteien mit einer Bezugnahmeklausel auf die Tarifverträge verweisen.
Das BAG hat entschieden, dass die Tarifvertragsparteien in Tarifverträgen nicht vereinbaren können, dass trotz beiderseitiger Tarifgebundenheit von Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitgeber die Ansprüche aus einem Tarifvertrag nur dann bestehen sollen, wenn die Arbeitsvertragsparteien den Tarifvertrag durch eine Bezugnahmeklausel individualvertraglich nachvollziehen.
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.
El RDL 16/2020 de 28 de abril y el Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal, que entrará en vigor el 1 de septiembre de 2020, han suscitado numerosas cuestiones, a la vista de la situación compleja que previsiblemente se avecina. Para abordar, desde un punto de vista práctico y ágil, las principales novedades que plantean, Bird & Bird celebró el pasado 30 de junio un webinar, bajo el título Principales novedades en materia preconcursal y concursal a raíz del RDL 16/2020 y el nuevo Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the "Act") represents big changes to the current insolvency legislative framework and potentially to companies who may be affected by an insolvency within their supply chain. It will introduce new protections for insolvent companies against creditors wishing to exercise termination rights within supply contracts and against more aggressive creditor action.
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.
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.