One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) was the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Under the PPP, small businesses (businesses with fewer than 500 employees) are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the Program, including applying at least 75% of the loans to payroll. The loans may also be used for payment of interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP loans are capped at $10 million for each small business.
Even in the halcyon days pre-coronavirus, a typical small business could not operate for more than two weeks without incoming revenue. In a matter of months, social distancing and mass unemployment having dramatically reduced consumer spending and companies are surviving by cutting energy usage, adjusting inventory purchases, and drawing on Paycheck Protection Program loans to backstop employee wages. Rent, however, is one expense that remains immutable.
The English Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the Debenhams case, on which we acted. A copy of the judgment can be downloaded here. This upholds the decision of the High Court, which followed the earlier decision in Carluccio’s.
In brief
The Chairman of the Supreme Court has just issued a decree on judicial guidelines for bankruptcy and court supervised restructuring (PKPU) processes ("Supreme Court Decree"), which sets out how Commercial Court judges are to manage bankruptcy and PKPU cases.
Paycheck Protection Program Loans Under the CARES Act
The Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), adopted as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which passed Congress on March 27, 2020 and was signed by President Trump the following day, provides forgivable loans guaranteed by the government to certain employers, with forgiveness of the loans dependent upon maintaining certain employment levels for the six months following the loan. A second PPP round was authorized in late April and is currently in process.
The question whether a counter claim filed against a Corporate Debtor is liable to be stayed during moratorium has been considered by the Courts/NCLT/NCLAT time and again. Since its inception, the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) has been a hotbed of discussions and debates amongst the legal experts. Under the Code, the concept of moratorium is envisaged under Section 13 and 14 and provides for a time period within which the following against the Corporate Debtor are prohibited:
Esta semana abordamos la reapertura al público de establecimientos, los efectos del RDL 16/2020 en materia procesal, concursal y tributaria, las medidas laborales ante la ‘desescalada’ y las novedades en trámites administrativos
Good morning.
Please find our summaries of last week’s civil decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
In the current economic climate, there is a pressing need for cross-jurisdictional co-operation when it comes to the Courts’ involvement in restructuring and insolvency proceedings. An increasing number of Hong Kong companies are finding themselves in need of urgent assistance with restructuring and insolvency processes; this requires international co-operation where, as is often the case, such companies are incorporated in offshore jurisdictions.