Concerns regarding the strength of UK supply chains and the consequences which arise when links in the chain fail, are not new and were recently subject to significant scrutiny in the context of Brexit negotiations. But with COVID-19 causing a host of new problems for already stressed supply chains, what can businesses do to protect themselves?

Lawyers have called for a break on winding-up petitions against retailers as they fail to pay creditors due to the outbreak. So far, retailers have been hit with 52 winding-up petitions since the beginning of the year, with the numbers accelerating since the coronavirus outbreak took hold, according to lawyers at RPC.

Such a move would give retailers breathing space as they try to mitigate the impact of coronavirus, but it would also hurt creditors including small suppliers.

The Government has launched a number of initiatives to assist companies and businesses to trade through the current financial stress. But what should directors still be aware of as they steer their organisations through these unprecedent times?

COVID-19: On 28 March 2020 the Business Secretary announced further new far-reaching measures to help businesses combat the financial impact of COVID-19. What it the likely impact of the suspension of wrongful trading provisions and a moratorium for businesses in restructuring on your business?

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland. March 02, 2020

The plaintiffs were various entities who filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in 2001. Their bankruptcy confirmation order set a bar date for the filing of claims by creditors against the entities. Nearly 16 years later, asbestos claimants filed claims for exposure to asbestos in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs then filed suit against the asbestos claimants as an adversarial bankruptcy proceeding. Motions for summary judgment were filed by both sides.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 19, 2020

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, February 18 2020

DELAWARE – The appellants are latent asbestos claimants who did not file by the bar date set by Chapter 11 bankruptcy but who were subsequently diagnosed with mesothelioma. The appellee is Energy Future Holdings Corporation (EFH), which was a holding company for several energy properties. Those subsidiaries became defunct long ago as a result of asbestos litigation. EFH also filed for bankruptcy as a result of vast sums of money owed to asbestos debtors. The reorganization plan called for a notice period to latent claimants followed by a subsequent bar date for claims.

Representatives of a lender on a board will not automatically impose directors' duties on the lender, but they may apply where a director's specific instructions have led directly to a breach of fiduciary duty. The High Court recently explored this issue in an appeal in the case of Standish v Royal Bank of Scotland plc.⁽¹⁾

Facts

NEW YORK – On Nov. 29, 2016, the plaintiffs, Anna and Guido Nocelli, both citizens of New York, filed an action in the Supreme Court of New York alleging 11 causes of action related to Anna Nocelli’s, alleged asbestos-related disease. The initial complaint named multiple defendants, including the Union Carbide Corp., that were citizens of New York.