On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2021 (the “CAA”) was enacted to provide additional coronavirus stimulus and relief for businesses challenged by the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. In doing so, the CAA includes several targeted, but temporary, changes to the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) designed to provide certain debtors with greater flexibility with respect to their leases (which may negatively affect landlords) while ensuring that creditors are not penalized under the preference law for renegotiating their lease terms (which should benefit landlords).
On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2021 (the “CAA“) was enacted to provide additional coronavirus stimulus relief for businesses challenged by the ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic. In doing so, the CAA includes several targeted, but temporary, changes to the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) which will have implications for lenders, landlords, vendors and other creditors. Absent further legislation, these changes will sunset on December 27, 2022, but will continue thereafter to affect cases filed prior to that date.
In our latest installment of our series “Bankruptcy On Ice”, we tackle temporary suspension of bankruptcy proceedings in response to the closure of “non-essential businesses” and other critical protective measures being imposed to fight the spread of COVID-19.
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is one of two business loan programs created under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to assist companies by extending potentially forgivable credit to small business employers. The PPP is designed to help cover employee-related expenses and help employers avoid layoffs. The prospect of forgivable debt, coupled with relatively favorable terms, have put PPP loans in high demand and many businesses, including some which had already sought chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, have sought PPP loans.
This article was originally published on Law360.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused, and continues to cause, massive humanitarian and economic upheaval with no clear end in sight. Borrowers are already scrambling to increase liquidity from their banks. Some will continue to operate openly, honestly, and in the best interests of the company and its stakeholders. Others will not.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.
Last week, in our first of what we expect to be many articles in the series “Bankruptcy On Ice”, we wrote about the unprecedented suspensions of proceedings enacted in several major chapter 11 bankruptcies in response to the temporary store closures and critical protective measures being imposed to fight the spread of COVID-19.