In civil disputes — including bankruptcy litigation — it is not uncommon for questions to arise about a client’s potential exposure to criminal liability, whether the client is a party or a witness. Civil litigators must therefore understand the role of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the civil context.

It’s often hard to tell whether the conflict between environmental cleanup laws and bankruptcy statutes is a bug or a feature. The two seem irreconcilable when the intent of environmental laws to protect public health and safety by imposing cleanup costs on the polluter runs headlong into the Bankruptcy Code’s design to give a debtor a fresh start. Frequently, the latter prevails.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has consistently applied its traditional small business lending qualification criteria to Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans — likely because the CARES Act grafted the PPP onto the SBA’s Section 7(a) loan program. But the CARES Act also contemplated that the purpose of the PPP was different from traditional SBA lending programs; the PPP is part economic stimulus and part inducement for businesses to continue to pay employees, landlords and banks notwithstanding the fear that COVID-19 would bring them economic hardship.

The impact of COVID-19 is being felt at all levels of the economy and will work its way through bankruptcy courts for years to come. In these early days, many creditors who are themselves suffering are providing assistance to troubled companies. Suppliers and commercial landlords are agreeing to various forms of relief, including modified credit terms and rent relief to allow customers to bridge this period of unprecedented disruption. While these corporate good Samaritans are providing immediate aid they may be subjecting themselves to the risk of future losses.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

Last week, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law, implementing broad relief for individuals and businesses affected by COVID-19. One of the sections of the CARES Act receiving less attention is a temporary amendment to the Bankruptcy Code to provide streamlined reorganization procedures for businesses with debt of less than $7.5 million.

As the nation hunkers down to combat the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bankruptcy courts throughout the country have moved quickly to implement procedures to preserve access to the courts while limiting in-person interaction during the crisis. Each court’s specific COVID-19 procedures are different, but they largely prohibit in-person hearings, recognize the need for flexibility and adjournments for non-emergent matters whenever possible, and encourage the creative use of technology to allow as many matters to go forward as scheduled, including evidentiary hearings.

Social distancing. Elbow bumps. Flatten the curve. These are the new phrases and behaviors we have learned to avoid exposure to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This epic struggle forces us to reexamine and reevaluate our daily habits, lifestyles and customs as we work collectively to minimize the harm to our families, friends and neighbors throughout the United States.

On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 18-1269 (U.S. 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that the so-called “Bob Richards rule” should not be used to determine which member of a group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a federal income tax refund.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).