The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.

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.

In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:

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.

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.

How should the liquidator of an insolvent trustee company ensure payment out of trust assets of the entirety of his or her remuneration and expenses?