2019 was a momentous year for the energy sector: The U.S. became a net oil exporter for the first time in recorded history and at the same time energy dropped to less than five percent of the S&P 500 Index. With the precipitous drop in commodity prices and macroeconomic volatility triggered by the oil price war and COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 presents challenges and change for the global and domestic energy sectors. We thank all of our valued clients and look forward to working with you to anticipate and solve problems and capitalize on industry and global trends.

As the economic turbulence associated with the downturn in commodity prices and the outbreak of COVID-19 continues, many energy companies may find their debt trading at significant discounts. For companies trying to manage liability and liquidity, this presents an opportunity to selectively repurchase debt and de-lever at prices well below par. Energy companies that are well-situated to capitalize on this window should carefully consider the corporate and tax ramifications debt buybacks present.

Corporate Considerations

Introductory remarks

The coronavirus (COVID-19) is currently causing concern and uncertainty and poses challenges to companies and individuals alike. A number of legal issues are also emerging, whether in relation to contractual obligations, labour law matters or corporate law aspects. This article aims to highlight the most important points from a Swiss law perspective and to clarify legal issues in the elaboration of possible courses of action.

1. Commercial contracts

1.1 Force majeure

As the U.S. energy industry comes to grips with the most dire economic crisis in its history, wrought by an invisible virus and global oil price war, and with many exploration and production (E&P) producers substantially adjusting their capital and maintenance budgets, all parties must carefully assess their partners’ financial positions. The bankruptcy filing of a joint venture partner (whether operator or nonoperator) can lead to substantial problems for the other joint venture partner(s) and potentially hamstring operations on the co-owned lands.

Certain governments have taken (extensive) measures to help businesses and its employees. This leads to an entire new and unprecedented market situation and results in sometimes unprecedented legal issues which require swift but thorough assessment, both from a national and cross-border perspective. To provide companies and its directors with some general guidelines in these times of uncertainty, our international Restructuring and Insolvency team has prepared an overview of certain pressing legal issues.

Right to carry out profit-making activities without limitation

Under the regime provided for by the Belgian law of 27 June 1921 (the Law of 1921), INPAs are prohibited from carrying out industrial or commercial operations unless the latter remain ancillary to their non-profit activities.

The liability of directors of major organisations receives wide coverage in the press. Examples (in the Netherlands) are Imtech, HDI, FC Twente, Vestia, and Meavita. But the subject really concerns directors of all legal entities, large and small. In this issue of Quoted, we refresh your knowledge of directors' liability and address recent developments, such as case law on `corporate directors' (legal entities which are appointed directors of other entities), the Bill for Management and Supervision of Legal Entities and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In de pers gaat het veelal over de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders van grotere organisaties zoals Imtech, HDI, FC Twente, Vestia en Meavita. In werkelijkheid gaat dit onderwerp bestuurders aan van alle rechtspersonen: van groot tot klein. Met deze Genoteerd frissen wij uw kennis op over de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders. Wij staan ook stil bij belangrijke relevante recente ontwikkelingen, zoals rechtspraak over de zogeheten rechtspersoon-bestuurder, het Wetsvoorstel bestuur en toezicht rechtspersonen en de Algemene verordening gegevensverwerking.

Op 7 juni 2019 heeft de Hoge Raad uitspraak gedaan in een procedure over de niet-voortzettingseis in de liquidatieverliesregeling die Loyens & Loeff namens een cliënt heeft gevoerd tegen de Belastingdienst.

Op grond van een Europese richtlijn gelden specifieke regels die beogen om werknemers te beschermen als er sprake is van een bedrijfsovername die in juridische zin aangemerkt kan worden als ‘overgang van onderneming’ (OVO). Deze bescherming geldt echter niet indien de werkgever in staat van faillissement is verklaard.