The High Court has dismissed applications to restrain the presentation of winding up petitions for reasons relating to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Background

Under the Scheme, furloughed employees, whose services cannot be used due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, will not be permitted to work for their employer during the period of furlough but the employer will be able to apply for a grant from the government to cover the cost of continuing to pay the employees 80% of their salary up to a cap of £2,500 per month.

Companies are now faced with unprecedented challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic. In this context, company directors will be trying to do everything they can to protect and preserve the business. However, they do still need to remember their legal duties, so as not to expose themselves to the risk of personal liability if their actions go beyond what the law allows.

Practical steps which directors should be taking now, as explained in more detail below include:

Many readers will be aware of the recent, sudden closure during service of Mayfair restaurant “The Square”, which left staff out of work and out of pocket after January’s wages remained unpaid.

Sadly this is by no means an isolated example, as every year thousands of bars and restaurants ‘go under’, but there are steps you can take to protect your position as an employee.

Keep Informed

Not all employers keep their staff updated on the financial health of the company, particularly when its struggling.

Executive Summary

Secured creditors filing a UCC financing statement under Article 9 must include a description of the collateral. (UCC 9-502) UCC Article 9 adopts a “notice filing” system, under which the purpose of the filing is to provide notice of a security interest in the specified collateral. UCC Article 9 does not require a precise (e.g., serial number) description. Even so, there has been much litigation over the sufficiency of the collateral descriptions in UCC financing statements.

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC nka Old Cold LLC, (Case No. 17-1657, U.S. Supreme Court, May 20, 2019) ("Tempnology"). The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a trademark licensee can continue to use a trademark license even when a bankrupt trademark licensor rejects the license agreement.

In its recent decision in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal confirmed the wide discretion enjoyed by a non-defaulting party under the default valuation provisions in the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition) (“GMRA”) when it comes to determining the “fair market value” of securities.

In particular, when assessing “fair market value”, the non-defaulting party is entitled to have regard to any distressed or illiquid market conditions that were being experienced at the relevant time.

The Great Recession of 2008 may seem a distant memory. September 15, 2018 is the 10th anniversary of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, and often seen as the point at which a garden-variety recession turned into the Great Recession, with catastrophic results severely impacting the livelihood of millions.

After a January 2018 decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, trademark licensees are faced with uncertainty again. (In re Tempnology, LLC, 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)). In our previous update, we discussed a 7th Circuit case dealing with the same issue. At the time we predicted that the holding in the case may have resolved the issue. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012)). But that was wrong.