On March 27, 2021, President Biden signed into law the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act (the Extension Act). The Extension Act temporarily extends certain COVID-19 bankruptcy relief provisions enacted as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), which were further amended and/or extended as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (the CAA). Certain of the amendments included in the CAA and the Extension Act are highlighted below:

Debtors and Paycheck Protection Program Loans

Introduction

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) established the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a lending program for small businesses pursuant to which up to 100 percent of the principal loan amount is forgivable. While the PPP program has been a boon to business struggling in light of the ongoing pandemic, the SBA has sought to limit access by bankrupt borrowers, eliminating a significant number of otherwise eligible businesses and creating significant legal questions and issues.

The economic fallout of COVID-19 is widespread and immense, and few businesses remain unscathed by fundamental changes to consumer spending. No industry may be more affected than traditional department stores and brick and mortar retailers. Pressures on these businesses are nothing new, and companies across the retail spectrum have worked in recent years, with varying degrees of success, to adapt to the rise of e-commerce and changing consumer preferences.

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Public Law No. 116-136 (the “CARES Act” or the “Act”), the stimulus package designed to mitigate the widespread economic impacts of the coronavirus (“COVID-19”). The Act includes important temporary modifications [1] to Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), applicable to small -business debtor reorganizations.

Temporary Increase in Debt Limit

On August 1, 2019 the U.S. Senate passed the Family Farmer Relief Act of 2019, which more than doubled the debt limit for “family farmers” qualifying for relief under Chapter 12 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to $10,000,000. The House of Representatives previously passed the same legislation on July 29, 2019; the legislation will now proceed to the White House for the President’s signature.

Executive Summary

Last week, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) ruled a debtor in bankruptcy cannot use the Bankruptcy Code to cut off a licensee’s rights under a license to use the debtor’s trademarks. This ruling resolves a Circuit split and brings the treatment of trademark licenses from a bankrupt debtor in line with patent and copyright licenses, which are protected statutorily by Bankruptcy Code section 365(n).

In a recent opinion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a seller licensed under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) could not entirely setoff payables owed to a bankrupt PACA merchant against receivables owed by the debtor. The ruling is a reminder to PACA-regulated parties that otherwise common operational practices such as setoffs may not be recognized and enforceable in bankruptcy or in PACA-regulated transactions.

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently enjoined a Hong Kong-based investor from exercising its shareholder purchase rights in an Asian joint venture.[1] The Bankruptcy Court’s order also prevents the investor from proceeding with litigation to enforce its rights in a Hong Kong court. Neither of the joint venture partners, or the joint venture itself, are debtors in a domestic or foreign insolvency proceeding. Nevertheless, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that injunctive relief was warranted because the investor’s actions were disrupting a sale process for the U.S.

On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision that will increase the exposure of debt and equity investors that receive payments from all kinds of highly leveraged transactions, including leveraged buy-outs and dividend recapitalizations. The unanimous opinion in Merit Management Group, LP v.