The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Seventh Circuit and resolved a split among the circuits in a ruling issued on January 14, 2021, concluding “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).” City of Chicago v. Fulton, 19-357 (Sup. Ct., Jan. 14, 2021). Consequently, a creditor that has properly repossessed or otherwise obtained possession of a debtor’s property prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing will not violate the automatic stay afforded to the debtor under the bankruptcy laws.

On December 14, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in Chuck E. Cheese’s chapter 11 proceeding reaffirmed that section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code generally requires commercial tenants in bankruptcy to continue to perform all of their lease obligations, including the payment of rent, subject to the bankruptcy court’s limited authority to modify the timing of performance for obligations that arise within the first sixty (60) days of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Despite a company’s claim that it deals only in legal hemp products, a federal court this week denied the company’s access to relief under the Bankruptcy Code. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Joseph Rosania Jr., of the District of Colorado, dismissed United Cannabis Corporation’s (UCANN) Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, a move that could cause concerns for cannabis companies that may be seeking bankruptcy relief, particularly in the midst of a global pandemic.

Bankruptcy Courts Struggle with Drawing the Line for Cannabis Industry Protections

Doing business in the United States

2021

2

Hogan Lovells

Doing business in the United States 2021

3

Contents

Introduction1

I.Openness of U.S. markets to foreign investment

2

II.Direct or indirect market entry and choice of entity

8

III. Commercial contracting

20

IV.Labor and employment law considerations

26

V.Immigration laws

34

VI.Intellectual property laws

40

VII. Export control and economic sanction laws

46

VIII. U.S. antitrust laws

56

Today, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding whether a creditor’s post-petition refusal to turnover bankruptcy estate property that it repossessed or impounded prepetition violates the automatic stay. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the creditor and decided that it did not violate the automatic stay.

A bankruptcy court judge in Texas recently handed down a ruling that could change the landscape of small business Subchapter V chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. The ruling is one of only a few known cases in the nation in which removal of the debtor-in-possession (DIP) has been sought and granted in a Subchapter V bankruptcy case.

Case Name and Number: Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357

Introduction: In an 8-0 opinion issued today, the Supreme Court held that a creditor’s passive retention of property properly seized from a debtor pre-bankruptcy does not violate the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

Nobody would deny that some companies have struggled to pay rent or invoices on time due to COVID-19. In many such cases, landlords and suppliers of goods or services have accommodated these struggling companies by explicitly or implicitly agreeing to postpone or defer payments in the hope that their customers/tenants would recover after the pandemic is resolved.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that property in which a debtor’s dependent son lived part-time with his father qualified for the so-called homestead exemption contained in section 522(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, regardless of state law.

In a recent decision in In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., No. 18-3084, 2021 WL 50160 (3d Cir. Jan 6, 2021), a divided Third Circuit panel held that an appeal of a Chapter 11 plan confirmation order was equitably moot and that the dissenting unsecured creditor who filed the appeal, David Hargreaves, was not entitled to individualized relief.