The Impact of COVID-19 on Contracts and Corporate Activities: Your Questions Answered
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.05.20
In response to the many questions we have recently received from clients, we have prepared a Q&A regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various day-to-day business activities in Belgium. In particular, we address the following specific questions:
- Can you suspend or terminate a contract without penalty as a result of COVID-19?
- How can you hold a general meeting or a board meeting that respects social distancing?
- What measures have been taken by the Belgian government to support businesses?
- What is the best way to sign contracts electronically?
The questions and answers in this Q&A are of course of a general nature and should not be considered to be comprehensive legal advice on specific questions and/or cases. Do not hesitate to contact our team if you have any specific questions and/or would like any advice with regard to a concrete situation.
In addition, Crowell & Moring Brussels recently launched its “COVID-19 Virtual Assistant.” This virtual tool allows you to navigate the rapidly evolving regulations adopted by the Belgian federal and regional governments in the wake of the pandemic. Our Virtual Assistant can be consulted free of charge and can be accessed via our Coronavirus Resource Center on our website.
For the Dutch version of the Q&A, please click here. The French version can be found here.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
