With the havoc being wreaked by the COVID-19 virus on businesses and supply chains, shuttering many businesses and decimating certain industries, business owners and management are seeking guidance to help mitigate their risk of financial distress. Following is a checklist with specific action items for decisionmakers to review, recognizing that every situation is unique and there is no universal solution that will fit every business scenario in our current unprecedented economic environment.

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 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.

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

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently dismissed a borrower’s complaint against a lender, finding that the lender did not wrongfully foreclose on the borrower or engage in predatory lending. SeeHealy v. U.S. Bank, N.A. for LSF9 Master Participation Tr., 2018 WL 3733934 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2018). In the case, the borrower executed a loan agreement secured by a mortgage on his house in 2004. In 2013, he defaulted on the loan, and the note and mortgage were assigned to the defendant lender thereafter.

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently reversed a Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of an action and held that sales arising from tax foreclosures may be avoidable as fraudulent transfers. SeeHampton v. Ontario Cty., New York, 2018 WL 3454688 (W.D.N.Y. July 18, 2018). The case involves two adversary proceedings commenced by homeowners against the County of Ontario (the “County”). In each matter, the County foreclosed on plaintiffs’ homes after plaintiffs failed to pay property taxes.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that a mortgage servicer was not barred from bringing a second foreclosure action after the first action was dismissed with prejudice. SeeFederal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Thompson, 2018 WI 57 (Wis. 2018). In the case, a mortgage servicer brought a foreclosure action against the defendant borrower in November 2010, alleging that the borrower defaulted on his April 2009 loan payment. As part of the lawsuit, the servicer accelerated the debt.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s decision that the gas gathering contracts that Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation entered into with two midstream service companies were personal obligations, and not “covenants running with the land” under Texas law, which, therefore, could be rejected under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Executive Summary

The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently granted a foreclosing plaintiff summary judgment and held that plaintiff did not need to send a 90-day notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 because plaintiff was not a lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer. SeeNIC Holding Corp. v. Eisenegger, 59 Misc. 3d 1221(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018). In the case, one of plaintiff’s employees was relocating and defendant wanted to purchase the employee’s home.