For months, landlords and tenants impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic have wondered whether force majeure clauses in leases would excuse a tenant's non-payment of rent. On June 3, 2020, a Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois offered us an early look into how courts might interpret such clauses in the midst of the current crisis. In In re Hitz Restaurant Group, No. 20-B05012, 2020 WL 2924523 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 3, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court ruled that Executive Order 2020-7, the Stay-at-Home Order (the "Order") enacted by Illinois Governor, J.B.

The initial wave of post-COVID Chapter 11 business bankruptcies has revealed an increasing tendency for senior executives of financially distressed companies to award themselves substantial bonuses and similar forms of compensation immediately before placing their companies into bankruptcy. If this trend continues, it may largely nullify the efforts of Congress and the courts to rein in and strictly regulate such forms of compensation.

Ever since governors across the country implemented Stay at Home orders to slow the spread of COVID-19 by closing non-essential businesses, experts have debated whether a force majeure provision of a lease would excuse a tenant’s obligation to pay rent.

Force majeure clauses and the doctrines of impossibility and/or impracticability remain among the most-discussed legal topics of the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts across the country, finally open, are grappling with those issues and giving some insight as to how these topics may play out in future cases.

Highlights

When agreements cannot be reached between businesses and lenders or certain other creditors to stretch the repayment of debts, legal and financial advisors may recommend that the company file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Such action can also apply to profitable companies looking to restructure debt that has grown due to temporary reductions in cash flow which the company covered in part by drawing on its line of credit with its lender.

Landlords are receiving a deluge of requests to provide rent relief to commercial tenants whose operations have either been closed or substantially restricted as a result of state and local governments’ COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and related restrictions. Some tenants are using the threat of a bankruptcy filing as leverage to obtain these concessions. Meanwhile, landlords are facing their own challenges with mortgage lenders and servicers as they try to service real estate loans with limited available cash.

In an attempt to make chapter 11 more streamlined and less expensive for debtors, Congress amended the bankruptcy code to add a brand new reorganization chapter: Subchapter V. Subchapter V is available exclusively to small-business debtors and provides a new option that is intended to be quicker and cheaper; it also offers less oversight and fewer reporting requirements than a traditional chapter 11 case. Congress originally made the new Subchapter V option available to all businesses with $2.7 million or less in aggregate secured and unsecured non-contingent and liquidated debt.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently held managing members of a limited liability company that filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy were equitably estopped from asserting ownership of equipment where the members previously verified documents in the bankruptcy showing ownership of the equipment by the company.

A copy of the opinion in Richards v. Rabo ArgiFinance, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion.

Introduction

The past decade has witnessed a significant increase in cross-border commerce involving Chinese companies. If these ventures fail, a common dilemma for our clients has been which jurisdiction they should focus their efforts on when enforcing their rights. As we explain below, the success of a cross-jurisdictional recovery claim can often depend on the important tactical decision of focusing on the correct jurisdiction(s) at the outset.

Identify all relevant jurisdictions