As COVID-19 related economic disruptions place unprecedented stress on cash flows, the risk of insolvency is a new and growing concern for many businesses. Against the backdrop of a decades-long growth in corporate debt, boards of directors are making decisions that have the potential for pitting the interests of creditors against the interests of equity shareholders.

COVID-19 presents the greatest challenge a generation of corporate managers will see in their lifetime.

This is not the first time the Australian economy has stared down the barrel of a severe economic downturn, but it is the first time the economic conditions that previously underlined robust business models have evaporated overnight due to a public health crisis.

The Act outlines certain insolvency law reforms in response to the COVID-19 crisis, including a temporary suspension of wrongful trading provisions for company directors. The suspension applies retrospectively from 1 March 2020 until 30 September 2020, and aims to encourage directors to continue to trade during the pandemic.

This change will not affect the directors’ duties regime. Directors must continue to comply with their duties, in particular those owed to the company's creditors where the company is, or is likely to be, insolvent.

The COVID-19 pandemic sweeping across the United States has triggered unprecedented disruption of corporate America, resulting in many otherwise healthy companies facing financial distress and potentially teetering on insolvency. These companies’ directors understandably may have questions about how this sudden change in financial health impacts the fiduciary duties they owe to the company.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, concerns have been raised by directors and bodies representing directors regarding potential liabilities directors may face by allowing businesses to continue to trade where there is a risk of insolvency.

In particular many directors are becoming increasingly concerned of the risks of personal liability being imposed on them if they allow their insolvent business to continue to trade in the anticipation that it will trade itself out of difficulty when the current COVID-19 crisis is behind us.

Hogan Lovells Publications | 29 May 2020

Implications of COVID-19 on the Australian Mining Industry

NOVEMBER 2020 Corona: directors’ duties and restructuring options in the BeNeLuCh Corona: directors’ duties and restructuring options in the BeNeLuCh I Introduction The rapid spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is leading to far-reaching health and safety measures all around the world. For people at home, but also for businesses, this creates a situation of great uncertainty. Certain governments have taken (extensive) measures to help businesses and its employees.

Germany's new restructuring regime is expected to come into force 0n 1 January 2021. At the heart of the new regulation is the introduction of a so-called stabilization and restructuring framework (“SRF”) for companies. In a sea change to the traditional approach, the SRF enables a company to be restructured before insolvency proceedings have to be initiated. It is therefore expected that this new regime will have a major impact on German restructuring practice.

Introduction of a Preventive Restructuring Framework

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 April 2018 decision, the BGH ruled on the question whether the directors of a company that has been granted debtor in possession status by the respective insolvency court can become personally liable for a breach of a duty of care vis-à-vis the creditors like an insolvency administrator. The underlying legal question was the subject of a controversial academic discussion in the past.