Lenders, investors, and mortgage servicers will have a more favorable and standardized framework for protecting their interests in distressed debt when applying for appointments of commercial receivers beginning July 1, 2023, when Connecticut’s Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (UCRERA) becomes effective.

Recent bankruptcy court decisions in In re Hidalgo and In re Cosi Inc. indicate that courts are split on whether the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and participating lenders can deny Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans to businesses that are debtors in a pending bankruptcy proceeding.

The SBA’s Bankruptcy Exclusion

Late last month, Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced Senate Bill 4321 (S-4321), titled “Continuing Small Business Recovery and Paycheck Protection Program Act” (Bankruptcy Access Bill), which, if enacted, would permit businesses in bankruptcy to qualify for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.

One Court Reverses Itself and Others Expose Eligibility Loopholes

Several recent bankruptcy court decisions reveal that a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Small Business Administration (SBA) from enforcing its rule that a debtor in bankruptcy cannot qualify for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan (the Bankruptcy Exclusion) is not necessarily a reliable predictor of ultimate success on the merits, and some courts have permitted end runs around the Bankruptcy Exclusion, empowering debtors to take advantage of those loopholes.

Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. (2019).

The U.S. Supreme Court has established an objective standard for determining whether a creditor should be held in civil contempt when the creditor attempts to collect a debt subject to a bankruptcy discharge order.

Case Background

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court finally resolved a trademark law issue that had remained unsettled for years: whether a bankrupt trademark owner may revoke a trademark licensee’s rights to a licensed trademark by “rejecting” the license agreement under a specific provision of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that the Code provided a bankrupt trademark owner with no such right, and thus a trademark licensee maintains its right to continue using the trademark per the terms of the license.

As any financial or legal professional will advise, a promise, representation or agreement should be in writing. This sound advice applies equally in the bankruptcy context, as the Supreme Court recently held.[1] When extending credit to an individual who makes a statement about her financial condition—whether it be her overall financial status or as to a specific asset (such as using a tax refund to repay a debt)—the creditor must get that statement in writing.

Our Delaware Corporate and Alternative Entity Law attorneys closely follow the opinions coming from Delaware’s Supreme Court and Court of Chancery. Our 2017 Year to Date Review is a collection of brief summaries of selected cases concerning Delaware Corporate and Alternative Entity Law. While this list is a selection of important cases, our intent is to provide our readers with the rationale behind a court’s holding to ultimately provide information that may be helpful in strategic and business decisions concerning litigation and commercial arrangements.

Unsecured creditors frequently find themselves in the lurch when a company files for bankruptcy. One of the few mechanisms for recovering the value of goods supplied to a debtor prior to a bankruptcy case is an administrative expense claim under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. In an administratively solvent bankruptcy case, an administrative expense claim will allow a creditor to obtain payment in full of the value of goods received by the debtor within the twenty-day period immediately preceding the bankruptcy petition date.

In a May 16, 2017 ruling, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court denying a party’s motion to compel arbitration. In doing so, the District Court adhered to traditional rules of contract interpretation in holding that the relevant arbitration provision was not written broadly enough to include the type of dispute pending before the bankruptcy court, and thus, the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction.