It is widely known that COVID-19 imposes immediate difficulties on many companies to pay their bills, and – equally – to collect their own outstanding invoices. Below, we discuss the most commonly expected complications against the background of enforcement, leniency provisions and – if worst comes to worst – insolvency in the Netherlands.
Government measures (emergency aid)
Our lives have changed completely in a few days due to COVID-19 and the world’s response to it. Governments react with a multitude of regulations, which have a considerable influence on the economy especially for the Retail & Consumer sector. This affects very different areas of law. Our sector approach consists, among other things, of showing you the legal consequences in the most diverse legal areas and our contact persons for this.
In order to protect German companies and their employees against the economic impact of the coronavirus, the German government has resolved on 23 March 2020 on a comprehensive set of measures. It is the largest government support programme which was ever enacted in Germany. These measures even go beyond the support organized by the government during the financial crisis. The goal of this “protective shield” is to provide businesses with sufficient liquidity to help them make it through the crisis.
As the Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread across the globe, people and businesses are facing unprecedented challenges, both immediate and strategic. Governments in various jurisdictions have announced various measures to try to alleviate the distress caused by the numerous issues that have arisen and continue to arise, particularly around cashflow and employees.
Het COVID-19 virus heeft ook vergaande gevolgen voor de toegankelijkheid van overheidsrechtspraak en alternatieve vormen van geschilbeslechting in Nederland. In dit artikel vertellen we u welke maatregelen er tot op heden zijn getroffen en wat de consequenties daarvan zijn voor zowel lopende als nieuwe zaken.
Sluiting van gerechtsgebouwen
The Australian Financial Review recently published an article regarding requests to the Australian Government to impose a moratorium on the insolvent trading laws to "help businesses during the economic downturn".
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).
The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.