In this week’s update: Guidance on virtual board and committee meetings, updates and guidance on AGMs, pre-emption principles are relaxed and a few other items.
This week, in coronavirus-related news
The Court of Appeal has recently published its decision in the case of Woodcock v Cumbria PCT. This case has attracted a significant amount of attention in the media as the case looks at the extent to which employers can rely on cost considerations to justify discrimination. Although the case does not break new ground, it does show that economic factors can be taken into consideration by employers in some cases.
Background
This was conclusion of the Court in the case of Nicola Jane Haworth v Donna Cartmel and Revenue & Customs Commissioners. The case was an application by Ms Haworth to annul or rescind a bankruptcy order on the grounds that she lacked capacity when a statutory demand and bankruptcy petition were served on her personally.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
Surfant sur les tensions du marché mondial des produits de protection sanitaire et leurs composants, les escrocs développent les fraudes aux fournisseurs.
Ayant choisi leur interlocuteur et se faisant passer pour un fournisseur habituel de la société ou une société détenant ces produits ou composants sous tension, ils développent une stratégie fondée sur la rareté et l’urgence pour faire effectuer sans délai des virements pour sécuriser les contrats.
Les règles de prudence doivent être d’autant plus respectées :
In 2019, the increased wave of distressed health care companies continued, and with downward pressure on reimbursement rates, regulatory changes, decreased occupancy rates and technological advances, this trend is unlikely to subside in 2020.
Health care providers often are heavily dependent on revenues from government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, accounting for nearly 40% of national health care spending in 2018. Therefore, a Medicare payment suspension could cripple a health care provider.
On Friday, March 27, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) submitted by the Senate and President Trump just signed the bill. The bill provides for $2.2 trillion in emergency aid to ease the financial impact of the COVID-19 crisis.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), a roughly $2 trillion coronavirus response bill signed into law yesterday, is intended to provide widespread emergency relief for Americans and the country’s economy. In addition to its benefits for individuals, the bill provides aid for small businesses, large corporations, hospitals and public health agencies, and state and local governments.
Two recent decisions involving health care companies demonstrate how reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code1 can be used to manage large liabilities.
Consumer Protection
Vacationers Beware: Timeshare Exit Companies May Be Scammers, not Saviors