Unprecedented times call for unprecedented solutions. This has never been more true than now as our world struggles through impactful changes to our lives, both at work and at play, as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As social distancing, stay-at-home orders, and sheltering-in-place have forced the closing of shopping centers and retail stores, bars and restaurants, movie theaters, and other venues, “business as usual” has largely, but hopefully only temporarily, ground to a halt.

Buried in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, which is expected to be passed by Congress and signed by the President today, are revisions to the Bankruptcy Code that are relevant to creditors dealing with distressed debtors. Most notably, the bill will impact the recently-enacted Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”) by increasing the potential pool of qualified debtors.

The business, economic and financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be understated. While our families, friends, and clients are adjusting to these difficult, uncertain and stressful times – protecting our families, friends and communities from the spread of the virus, working from home, avoiding public spaces, and social distancing – businesses large and small are suffering from shutdowns, closures, breaks in supply chains, and the loss of business and revenue.

Currently there are no clear laws specifically addressing the means for addressing insolvency issues for debtors and creditors involved in the Cannabis industry. Like the industry itself, the laws are evolving. Using a Cannabis grower business as an example, at this time the Federal Court system is not available to address such entities insolvency issues.

Over the years, much has been written about the Bankruptcy Code’s treatment of small businesses, and the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission’s testimony to Congress this summer made clear that the existing law fell short of providing necessary relief for small businesses. For example, of the 18,000 small business bankruptcy cases filed between 2008 and 2015, less than 27% of those cases resulted in confirmed plans of reorganization. And these numbers excluded countless small businesses that, for a variety of reasons, did not or could not seek bankruptcy relief. See Robert J.

Over the past several years, much has been written about how numerous bankruptcy courts have interpreted and enforced bankruptcy and insolvency-related provisions in intercreditor agreements, subordination agreements and other “agreements among lenders” when they may affect a debtor and its estate.

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.

Starting now, all creditors must exercise more caution when trying to collect against discharged bankruptcy debtors, because a creditor’s good faith belief that the discharge injunction did not apply is no longer a viable defense. On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for awarding sanctions against a creditor for violation of the discharge injunction, unanimously holding that a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is “no fair ground of doubt” that the discharge order barred the creditor’s conduct.

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).