A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trustputs an end to one of Puerto Rico’s multi-pronged efforts to deleverage itself.

In the Ultimate Escapes bankruptcy case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the “business judgment rule” may protect fiduciaries who negotiate and enter into unconventional financing agreements in an attempt to save the company. In short, a failed business strategy by itself does not lead to liability for breach of fiduciary duty.

At first glance, Stanziale v. MILK072011, looks like someone suing over a bad expiration date and conjures up images of Ron Burgundy proclaiming “milk was a bad choice.” But in actuality Stanziale is much more interesting: it answers whether one can breach their fiduciary duty by exposing an employer to a claim under the aptly-named WARN Act, which requires employers to tip off their workers to a possible job loss.

Directors of an insolvent corporation face a host of difficult questions. Should they wind up operations or file for bankruptcy to preserve assets for creditors, or chart a riskier course that could lead the company back to profitability and possibly create value for shareholders? If they choose the riskier course and it fails, will the directors be potentially liable to creditors? The opinion issued by Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery earlier this month in Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, slip op., 2014 Del. Ch.

In a decision not designated for publication, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an insurer's declaratory judgment complaint for rescission effectuated the rescission of the policy and that the subsequent coverage litigation confirmed the validity of the rescission. In re Sonic Blue Inc., 2010 WL 2034798 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2010).

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed immense strain across the whole of the economy and raises the issue of how company directors should balance their obligations to shareholders and creditors while ensuring that they protect themselves from any personal liability.

Companies and their directors in the following sectors of the economy face difficult decisions:

With the current financial difficulties faced by the oil & gas industry, directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales must be mindful of their duties and responsibilities to the company as well as the potential personal liability that could arise from breaching those duties and responsibilities in the context of an insolvency.

Who qualifies as a director?

The Ministry of Law in Singapore has announced that it will introduce a bill to the Parliament next week to offer temporary relief to businesses and individuals who are unable to fulfil their contractual obligations because of the COVID- 19 pandemic.

The proposed bill includes:

Introduction:

The Australian Federal Government announced temporary amendments, effective 24 March 2020, to insolvency and corporations law in response to the challenges that businesses are facing as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. These amendments provide a safety net to businesses in challenging times to foster survival for those businesses once the crisis has passed.