On 18 May 2020, the same date that Romania switched to a state of alert that will expire on 17 June 2020, Law no. 55/2020 entered into force, which contains amendments to legal provisions for regular insolvency during the state of alert.
The most important amendments include a deferral of the obligation to file for insolvency, an increase in the threshold for petitioning for insolvency, extension of the duration for the reorganisation plan and an extension of other procedural deadlines.
The following is a list of the major amendments contained in the law:
Introduction
With global economies facing uncertain times as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and many businesses facing significant challenges to cash flow, revenue and bad debts, the possibility of insolvency will be very real for some companies in the UAE. In such circumstances it is important that directors fully appreciate how their duties and liabilities will be impacted and ensure decisions made in a financial distress situation are made in full consideration of these.
1.Why use an electronic signature?
2.What is e-signing?
3.Is e-signing valid?
4.What types of document can be signed electronically?
5. Are there any restrictions/protocols relating to electronic signatures?
6. What is the position with overseas entities?
7. E-signing with a secure platform
8. E-signing without a secure platform
Why use an electronic signature?
On Saturday (28 March 2020) the UK Government announced certain changes to insolvency laws in response to COVID-19, intended to help companies and directors.
There are two aspects to the changes:
Retrospective suspension or relaxation of wrongful trading
New restructuring procedure and new temporary moratorium
Introduction
The decision of ICC Judge Barber in the case of Stephen Hunt & System Building Services Group Limited -v- Brian Michie & System Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch) was recently handed down and it is an interesting decision about directors’ duties post the appointment of an administrator or liquidator.
Facts
The facts are quite involved and matter specific, and gave rise to a number of issues, but for present purposes the key issues are as follows.
On 25 February 2020, the High Court handed down an important ruling: Granville Technology Group Limited (In Liquidation) and Others v Elpida Memory (Europe) Gmbh and Others [2020] EWHC 415 (Comm). This is the first ruling by an English Court on how the Limitation Act 1980 should be applied to secret cartel claims.
A real, as opposed to remote, risk of insolvency is not necessarily enough for the duties of a board of directors to switch from being owed to its shareholders to being owed to its creditors.
The Facts
Mr Tailby and Mr Courtman were appointed Administrators over three connected companies: TPS Investments (UK) Ltd; ABC Prop Co Holdings Ltd and CP Investment Holdings Limited. TPS was a property developer and owned a number of properties; two of these were transferred to ABC and one to CP.
The Court interpreted the terms of a Termination Agreement and found that the Applicant, Europa, was entitled to €1.3 million from the Defendant, AII, in relation to funds invested on Europa's behalf, which had been paid out and held by AII. As a matter of construction, it could not have been intended that AII should be left with sums owing to an investor following a Termination Agreement.
The Supreme Court has recently held that directors who have caused company property to be transferred to another company under their control may be liable to restore the proceeds even after expiry of the six-year limitation period.
Mr and Mrs Fielding were directors and majority shareholders of Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd ("BHUK"), a holding company with trading subsidiaries including Vital Energi Utilities Ltd ("Vital Energi").