Introduction

Prognostications of an impending recession are appearing in regular dispatches ranging from daily news media to quarterly economic reports. Like the Great Recession, the if and when of any recession will only be answered after it has occurred. Moreover, these conclusions are simply an aggregation of the particular experience of a wide-range of industries, and diverse and distinct companies within those industries. What is true today for each of those individual companies is that their particular economic ecosystem is changing rapidly, and often with increasing financial challenges.

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.

With very little press, President Trump signed into law the Family Farmer Relief Act on August 23, 2019 (Public Law no. 116-51). The measure increases the current debt limit used to determine whether a family farmer is eligible for relief under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code from $4,411,400 to $10,000,000. By lifting this cap, Congress has provided more farmers, who would otherwise be required to file Chapter 11, with the opportunity to qualify for the specialized relief of Chapter 12.

Congress approved, and earlier this month the President signed, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 which streamlines existing rules governing the efforts of small businesses to restructure successfully under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The law effectively makes it more difficult for creditors to contest small business Chapter 11 cases, but it also provides creditors in all bankruptcy cases several major benefits through changes to the preference laws.

Subchapter V of Chapter 11.

Being in the cross-hairs of a client’s legal malpractice claim is a horrible-enough experience for any lawyer. Even worse would be if your house had to be sold in order to satisfy the former client’s default judgment against you, as the Seventh Circuit ordered in a case earlier this month.

The Third Circuit recently took a “pragmatic approach” when affirming lower court orders denying a stay of bankruptcy settlement distributions pending appeal. In re S.S. Body Armor I, Inc., 2019 WL 2588533 (3d Cir. June 25, 2019). After holding that the district court’s “stay denial order” was “final” for jurisdictional purposes, it also confirmed “the applicable standard of review” on motions for stays pending appeals.

Relevance

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that payments made by a debtor’s customers to its lender converting a pre-petition loan to a post-petition loan constituted disbursements for the purposes of calculating the statutory fees payable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6). In re Cranberry Growers Coop., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21121 (7th Cir. July 17, 2019). This decision, coupled with the increase in the quarterly fees for the U.S.

In Trinity 83 Dev., LLC v. ColFin Midwest Funding, LLC, 917 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code does not moot an appeal involving a dispute over the proceeds of a sale of assets in bankruptcy. In concluding that section 363(m) does not moot such an appeal, but merely provides the purchaser with a defense in litigation challenging the sale, the Seventh Circuit overruled its prior decision on the scope of section 363(m) in In re River West Plaza-Chicago, LLC, 664 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.

In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 652, 2019 WL 2166392 (U.S. May 20, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rejection in bankruptcy of a trademark license agreement, which constitutes a breach of the agreement under section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, does not terminate the rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law.