On January 12, 2021, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) settled its first civil action for alleged fraud against the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) – the primary lending program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act for small businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the past four years, midstream firms have struggled to adapt their long-standing practices and adjust their long-held expectations, which were fundamentally disrupted by the outcome of the landmark bankruptcy case, In re Sabine Oil & Gas. Midstream providers have since developed and relied on certain mechanisms and carefully drafted contract language in order to bind upstream companies and their successors in interest to obligations and restrictions contained of midstream agreements.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”), which came into force on 26 June 2020, introduced a series of new “debtor friendly” procedures and measures to give companies the breathing space and tools required to maximize their chance of survival. The main insolvency related reforms in CIGA (which incorporates both permanent and temporary changes to the UK’s laws) include:

1. New moratorium to give companies breathing space from their creditors

2. Prohibition on termination of contracts for the supply of goods and services by reason of insolvency

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”), whose jurisdiction includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, recently held that, under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor’s pre-petition and certain post-petition voluntary retirement contributions are excludable from the debtor’s disposable income, which is used to satisfy a debtor’s obligations to its unsecured creditors.

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court settled a circuit split concerning whether a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code “deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” In a decision written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that while a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license results in a pre-petition breach, it does not constitute a rescission of the contract, and thus the licensee may retain the rights granted to it under the license.

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

In 2018, approximately 40 companies in the oil and gas industry filed bankruptcy in the United States, including companies engaged in exploration and production, oilfield services, and midstream services.

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

Two years ago, after a slew of bankruptcies in the energy sector triggered by a dramatic drop in commodity prices during the worst downturn for U.S. energy producers since the 1980’s, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued new guidance that proposed changes to underwriting analysis and loan risk rating determinations by national banks and federal savings associations of loans secured by oil and gas reserves (RBLs).

1 Driven by a concern that banks were not appropriately capturing risks associated with increased

On July 19, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered a decision upholding the results of a foreclosure sale against a debtor’s allegation that the sale was a preference because the bankruptcy estate could have sold the property for a higher price. Veltre v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Veltre), Case No. 17-2889 (3d Cir. July 19, 2018).