The current COVID-19 pandemic is causing an unprecedented negative impact on businesses around the globe in nearly every sector of the economy. Both the US Government as well as Foreign Governments have and will continue to provide short- and long-term financial support to these businesses. However, this financial assistance will not be available to every business, nor will it be adequate in all instances to offset decreased revenue resulting directly and indirectly from the pandemic.

On March 25, 2020, the Senate passed an amendment to H.R. 748, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (as amended, the “CARES Act”), which (as of March 26, 2020) is being considered in the House.

The complete text of the current draft of the CARES Act can be found here.

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked” – Warren Buffet

The tide has gone out on the municipal finance market.

While much of the discussion about the financial fall-out of the COVID-19 virus has focused on the massive wealth destruction in stock markets and pressure on corporates around the world, the impact on the largest financial market in the world- the $3 trillion US municipal finance market- cannot be ignored. Simply put, the market is imploding.

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.

On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.

By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing circuit split regarding the impact of bankruptcy filings on trademark licenses. Until May 20th, brand owners in some jurisdictions could use bankruptcy protections to terminate the rights of third parties to use its licensed trademarks. Now, it is clear that a bankrupt licensor cannot rescind trademark license rights. Licensees can continue to do whatever their trademark licenses authorize, even if the licensor has filed for bankruptcy.

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the BIA prevailed over a conflicting provision in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor is not impaired for the purpose of voting on a plan if it is the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to plan treatment) that impairs a creditor’s claim. The court further held that a make-whole premium is a claim for unmatured interest which is not an allowable claim under Bankruptcy Code, absent application of the “solvent-debtor” exception which may or not apply—the issue was remanded to the bankruptcy court for decision.

On January 9, 2019, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a motion with the U.S.

On January 15th, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that the end user of an electricity forward contact was not entitled to the benefits of the safe harbor provisions under Section 556 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 556 allows a “forward contract merchant” to terminate a forward contract post-petition based on an ipso facto clause in the contract and exempts such actions from the automatic stay.