On 25 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) received Royal Assent. The Act makes both temporary and permanent changes to the UK insolvency laws.

The UK Government has published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) that proposes to make both temporary and permanent changes to UK insolvency laws.

As part of these measures, new provisions will be inserted into existing legislation to introduce a new debtor-inpossession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. This alert explores the impact of these moratorium measures on secured lenders, with a particular focus on the impact on qualifying floating charge holders (QFCH).

The financial constraints caused by the coronavirus has affected the world’s economy and its outlook is still unknown and gloomy. Companies from all industries worldwide have been taking all sorts of measures to mitigate losses, preserve cash flow and, ultimately, survive. Just like other companies around the globe, the coronavirus has pushed many struggling Brazilian companies over the edge and into bankruptcy.

This quick guide summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in Australia are subject to, and how those duties change when a company is insolvent or at risk of being insolvent.

It also gives an overview of the personal risk to directors when a company is in financial difficulty.

This note is intended as an overview and should not be relied on as legal advice. Should you require legal advice in relation to your specific circumstances, please contact the Restructuring & Insolvency team member whose contact details are at the end of this note.

COVID-19 is placing unprecedented strain on all businesses, and insolvency practitioner (“IP”) practices are no exception. Government-imposed restrictions on activities and movement will have a direct impact on the ability to carry on business as usual. There may be fewer employees available (through illness, self-isolation and furloughing), strain placed on remote working capabilities and a limited ability to carry out site visits to deal with cases as usual. Closure of schools and caring responsibilities may also lead to reduced personnel capacity.

As we see more businesses having to close doors or adapt to a new set of rules, we set out a summary of some of the issues we anticipate for those needing to shut down but preserve their businesses at least until the lockdown is over. We will produce a more detailed client alert as matters develop although one message is clear – employers, employees, suppliers and customers are facing unique challenges and the best way to survive is to identify the issue, understand the options, and engage with pragmatism.

Employees

In a unanimous decision affirming the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that creditors have 14 days to appeal a bankruptcy court’s denial of relief from the automatic stay. In one of the term’s first decisions, Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in Ritzen Group, Inc. v.

We’re still a month away from Halloween, but TCPAWorld has just become even scarier.

I have frequently remarked on the unfairness of individual corporate officers being held individually and personally liable for TCPA violations committed by corporate entities. That sometimes means liability well into the millions of dollars in personal exposure for individuals based upon actions taken by companies these individuals helped run. Well imagine, for a moment, if all that exposure were deemed non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Horrifying right?

Earlier today, the Supreme Court finally answered the question of whether a trademark licensee is protected when the trademark owner/licensor files a bankruptcy petition and rejects the trademark license in accordance with section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. To cut to the chase, trademark licensees won.

In New South Wales (NSW), unlike in Victoria, claimants in liquidation have been able to make claims under Security of Payments Acts (SOPA). This has been recently reaffirmed in the case of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] NSWCA 11 (Seymour), where the court doubled-down on this position and further explained why the NSW position differs from the position taken by the Victorian Court of Appeal in the infamous Faade Treatment Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 247 (Faade).