As discussed in an earlier Legal Update,¹ substantial uncertainty exists over whether companies in bankruptcy are eligible for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, which was established by the CARES Act to support small businesses by offering SBA-guaranteed loans on advantageous terms. Several recent bankruptcy court decisions underscore this uncertainty.

Times are changing rapidly with the current flow of Coronavirus measures introduced to support businesses in debt and distress.

We take a look at what creditors can (and can’t) do to help better protect their position.

I’m owed money. What can I do?

Certain recent government measures may impede your ability to take recovery or enforcement action at the present time. The good news is that many avenues remain available.

You cannot (in some cases):

Potentially casting retail landlords against their debtor-tenants, a bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of Virginia--an increasingly popular destination for major retail bankruptcy filings--allowed Pier 1 and its affiliates to effectively "shelter in place" while the majority of its stores remain closed across the country.

As we move closer to a global recession caused by the current pandemic, some companies will find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to seek bankruptcy relief. This may have some important and often overlooked privacy implications. There is no question that in this day and age, one of a business’ most valuable assets is the personal information that it has collected from its customers and/or end-users – often more so than any of its tangible assets.

The news of major retailers, gyms and others filing or expecting to file for bankruptcy protection is yet another unfortunate reality of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. A corporate bankruptcy can lead to a host of insurance-related issues, including claims made against directors and officers, competition for finite insurance limits, and disputes over who has rights or priority to, and can access, insurance policy proceeds.

On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") released its reasons for the ruling rendered on January 23, 2020, which allowed the appeal by 9354-9186 Québec Inc. and 9354-9178 Québec Inc. (collectively, "Bluberi")^[1]. The SCC's ruling set aside the Québec Court of Appeal's (the "Court of Appeal") ruling, thereby restoring the first instance judgment of the Superior Court of Québec ("Superior Court").

In a comprehensive judgment published on 23 April 2020, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal, comprising Moses JA, Martin JA and Rix JA, has provided welcome clarification of the interplay between a contractual agreement to arbitrate disputes arising between shareholders and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to determine whether a company should be wound up on the just and equitable ground.

As many readers will know, Guernsey has recently approved a significant set of reforms to our insolvency legislation, to bring it in line with comparable jurisdictions such as England. A rules committee is also working on a set of corresponding rules to deal with the finer procedural points that affect a Guernsey insolvency. You can read Ogier's briefing on the new reforms here.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, May 13, 2020

In a recent decision 9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidius Capital Corp, 2020 SCC 10 , the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that: