Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

Australia’s ageing population has driven innovation in delivering housing solutions for retirees and elderly alike. As a nation of sports fanatics who also love nature and green open spaces, it is no surprise that there has been a steadily increasing trend to co-locate retirement living with recreational facilities such as golf courses, bowls clubs and other recreational clubs.

HopgoodGanim has been fortunate enough to have acted for a number of retirement village operators (scheme operators) and clubs with respect to co-location projects in Queensland.

Corporate ventures are usually founded with the very best intentions, but as matters unfold disputes between investors are all too common.

The legal steps to resolve such disputes and assert control over a company can be complex and arduous.

However, there are good reasons for this due process, and it cannot be circumvented.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more businesses are finding themselves in distress. According to Forbes, 30 million small businesses across the United States are experiencing financial distress, with half of those blaming the global pandemic for revenue decline. These challenges are especially felt by small businesses who may have limited access to the financial markets and investors as compared to larger companies, both public and private, and especially those whose owners have made personal guarantees on business loans.

As part of its COVID-19 economic response package, the Federal Government recently introduced a temporary ‘safe harbour’ for directors from personal liability for a company’s insolvent trading, which will apply for a period of six months from 25 March 2020.

If ever there were times challenging enough for boards to be considering the financial lifeline that is safe harbour from insolvent trading, these are they.

On a daily basis we are reading news of businesses having to shut down and lay off employees and seeing footage of lengthy Centrelink queues. Boards are working harder than ever to govern their organisations in incredibly uncertain times.

As part of the its efforts to stem the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Australian economy, the Federal Government has recently introduced a number of ‘safety net’ provisions designed to avoid financially distressed individuals and companies being forced into, respectively, bankruptcy and liquidation.

The objective is to allow them to continue trading where possible.

The reforms

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented economic disruption, creating sudden financial distress across industries. Companies are now facing impacts ranging from a dramatic decline in revenue of uncertain duration, to potential setbacks to M&A transactions, to delayed or canceled financing rounds.

With even some previously well-performing companies potentially entering the so-called zone of insolvency, it’s important to review the fiduciary duties owed by directors and officers and how discharging those duties may change in the face of financial distress.

Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

Only A Few Rule Amendments This Year. Unlike previous years, there are only four rule amendments expected to take effect on December 1, 2019. Here they are:

A Big Answer To A Big Question. After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Here’s the question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC case: