Congress recently sent two different bills to the President’s desk that are designed to provide an easier path for family farming operations and small businesses to reorganize under the Bankruptcy Code: the Family Farmer Relief Act of 2019 and the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019.

The national and local publications have been full of articles recently on the emerging agricultural crisis confronting producers. By some measures, sectors of the ag economy are in the third year of declining net farm incomes, and some dairy producers in particular appear to be in dire straits. In light of these events, now might be a good time for lenders to brush up on the most significant laws affecting their loan remedies in the event it becomes necessary to seek enforcement of their loans. Below are short summaries of two important laws affecting loan enforcement:

The legalization of marijuana and the Bankruptcy Code continue to proceed on a crash course. A majority of states have legalized marijuana for medical use, and a growing number have legalized recreational use as well. As a result, the industry is rapidly expanding – national sales in legal markets have increased 34 percent in 2018 to $10.8 billion.

Should the laws of the United States have effect outside of the United States? For that matter, should the laws of other countries have effect outside of their borders, and inside the United States? These are pretty fundamental questions about what should be the world order. A recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a bankruptcy case with a high likelihood of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, takes on that issue. It is a case to watch.

In certain states, including Minnesota, a resident may file a bankruptcy case and elect to protect certain assets under the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Code provides that these exemption amounts are automatically adjusted for inflation every three years. In short, the adjustments are based on changes to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor, rounded to the nearest $25.

As commonly understood amongst bankruptcy professionals, when a creditor violates the discharge injunction in a bankruptcy case, courts have the authority to levy civil contempt violations against the violating creditor. However, a more difficult question for those professionals, and one that presiding courts have occasionally struggled to answer, is under which circumstances a creditor’s abusive action actually rises to the level of civil contempt.

I have been reading Storm Lake, a book by Art Cullen, the editor of the Storm Lake (Iowa) Times and a 2017 Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial writing. In his book, Cullen chronicles the ways that agriculture and his hometown of Storm Lake have been transformed over the years. What strikes me most about the book is how the business cycles of boom and bust still exist in agriculture today and are little changed from when I was growing up on a farm in Iowa decades ago. It appears that we are in or entering a new bust cycle in production agriculture.

In a recent decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a receiver’s power to pursue a creditor’s “veil piercing” claims against insiders of the company in receivership and blocked the creditor from pursuing those same claims after the receivership ended. Aaron Carlson Corp. v. Cohen, No. A18-0100 (Minn. Ct. App., October 1, 2018).

When the Minnesota legislature opened a three-year window for victims of sexual abuse to commence lawsuits, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis and other Catholic dioceses and organizations. The thee-year window closed on May 25, 2016. Some of the cases filed during the three-year window were tried or settled, but a large number remained. The total potential exposure exceeds the ability of the different Catholic entities to pay.

For decades, the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the District of Delaware have reigned as the busiest commercial bankruptcy venues in the United States. Clients and attorneys alike have chosen to file commercial cases in these two venues for multiple reasons, including New York City’s standing as the country’s financial capital, the number of Fortune 500 and smaller companies incorporated or headquartered in Delaware or New York, and these venues’ experience handling complex bankruptcy filings.