In sophisticated real estate financing transactions, most prudent lenders attempt to deter borrowers from filing for bankruptcy before loans are paid in full by providing in loan documents that such a filing constitutes an event of default. Many lenders will insist that their borrowers remain “bankruptcy remote” in the form of a so-called “single asset real estate” entity during the term of the loan.
In June of 2020, Miller Canfield reportedthat the Fifth Circuit held that a Texas bankruptcy court had exceeded its authority when it ordered the SBA Administrator to make a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan available to a debtor in bankruptcy.
The year 2020 in bankruptcy law started with an eye on increasing the ability of small businesses to utilize the Chapter 11 process in a more efficient and less expensive way, which lead to a record number of commercial filings, a reduction in consumer filings, and a test of the bankruptcy system.
SBRA aka Subchapter V
In a small victory for landlords of bankrupt tenants, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas has ruled that the Chuck E. Cheese parent company may not use its bankruptcy filing to avoid paying its rent.
The United States Congress revived the age-old tradition of passing a lame-duck Christmas Tree appropriations bill to fund the government and provide a second wave of much-needed COVID-19 relief legislation.[1] The nearly 5,600-page bill includes temporary alterations to the Bankruptcy Code to help thos
Congress passed the long-awaited Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“CAA”) December 22, 2020, which now is awaiting the President’s signature to become law. The CAA contains several COVID-19-related amendments to the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. (“Bankruptcy Code”), which may affect creditors. The CAA’s “Bankruptcy Relief” amendments are set forth in Title X of the Act. Those amendments of greatest interest to creditors are:
Business headlines have warned of a potential “chilling effect on buyouts” as a result of the decision recently issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re: Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Dec. 4, 2020). Contrary to the views of some other commentators on the decision, we do not believe that the decision is likely to chill leveraged buyout activity, to upend how LBOs have been conducted, or to significantly increase the potential of liability for target company directors selling the company in an LBO.
A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sent shock waves through the legal and financial community, with some shouting that this “could be a gamestopper for the private equity business.”1 Although the ruling in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation2 breaks new ground and arguably narrows the protections available to directors under the normally-broad business judgment rule, there are clear lessons others can take from this saga to prevent a similar fate.
The coronavirus pandemic has been particularly cruel to brick-and-mortar retail establishments. As rising infection rates force municipalities to roll back reopening plans, retail and hospitality businesses that rely on in-person sales to generate revenue are finding it impossible to manage fixed costs, especially rent. Many have sought shelter in chapter 11, only to discover that even the federal bankruptcy laws cannot always solve their rent problems.
What Does the Chapter 11 Tenant Owe its Landlord During the Bankruptcy Case?
A recent decision of New York’s highest court potentially strengthens the ability of lenders to bring suits against third parties for participation in a borrower’s breach of single purpose entity/bankruptcy remote loan document covenants.