TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVID-19: Summary of Key Issues.................................................................................... 1

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Phase 1 of the ‘scaling-down’ process, third tranche of guarantees, extension of ERTE temporary layoffs, potential delay in the application of VAT directives and of DAC6, and measures to support the cultural sector

The recent weeks have seen a number of major corporates enter voluntary administration, including Virgin Australia, Techfront Australia, Collette by Collette Hayman and Carriageworks Sydney, as a result of pre-existing distressed financial positions that were exacerbated by the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The uncertainty that COVID-19 has brought, particularly the restriction on gatherings and the shutdown of non-essential services, created challenges for administrators looking to restructure businesses and maximise returns for creditors.

The German Federal Government’s various aid measures for employees, self-employed persons, small, medium and large enterprises are suitable for alleviating personal hardships, reducing the economic costs of insolvencies and plant closures and supporting the economy. In addition, it is important that the German Federal Government will play also a constructive role in overcoming the crisis on a European level, to avoid the COVID19 pandemic leading to a European sovereign debt crisis.

APPEAL ALLOWED

9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp., 2020 SCC 10

Bankruptcy and insolvency   Discretionary authority of supervising judge in proceedings under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act    Appellate review of decisions of supervising judge

SJK Wholesale Limited (In Liquidation) v Companies Act 2014 [2020] IEHC 196

Introduction

In a recent decision, the Irish High Court refused to grant a liquidator access to a Google email account.

The court ruled that Irish insolvency law did not permit a court to order Google Ireland to grant the liquidator access to the email account in circumstances where the email account was created in the name of an individual rather than the company itself.

Many things have changed during the Covid-19 lockdown. Additional time with family and time to catch up with things I wouldn’t otherwise have had time to do are two of the main benefits I have enjoyed. Being a rather boring lawyer, one guilty pleasure I have indulged in is watching transmissions of Supreme Court hearings.

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court’s decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Merlin Diamonds Limited (No 3)[2020] FCA 411, in which, consequent on finding a number of contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court ordered the winding up of that company.

Background

对董事们而言，公司清盘可能是其以往不法行为报应不爽的审判日。如果无力偿债山雨欲来，有一些事项董事们应牢记在心，以免在无力偿债境况已不可避免时承担个人责任。

不公平优先权

有关不公平优先权的规定，可参见《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》第 266、266A 和 266B 条（第32章）(简称“条例)。下列情况均构成公司对某人给予不公平优先权：

1. 此人为公司的债权人，或者是公司债务或负债的保证人或担保人；
2. 因为诉讼，此人所处境地优于假如公司进行清算的情况；以及
3. 公司有意让此人处于更优处境。请注意，如果对公司的合伙人给予不公平优先权，则对此意愿的推定将可以辩驳。

如果 (1) 在清盘即将启动之前的两年内对公司合伙人（如董事、影子董事或公司的其他高管），或是 (2) 在清盘启动之日前的六个月内对与公司无关联者给予不公平优先权，则构成不公平优先权的交易将作废，并可被法院命令搁置，从而将公司恢复到给予该不公平优先权之前的状态。