We have previously written about the effects of COVID-19 on the way we currently work, as well as how businesses need to adapt to protect their trade secrets, customer goodwill, and other interests. In ordinary times, emergency injunctive relief is often the first resort for a business after discovering its trade secrets were stolen or customer relationships are at risk.

On March 31, 2020, the Rhode Island Superior Court announced the creation of its COVID-19 Receivership Program. The Program establishes a unique non-liquidating receivership calendar intended to assist Rhode Island businesses that are unable to pay their debts as they become due as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The Program is designed to give struggling businesses time to obtain emergency funding under the CARES Act or other source, to resume paying its ongoing obligations under Court supervision, and repay its prepetition debt.

During challenging economic times, Bankruptcy Courts serve an essential governmental and financial function. The COVID-19 outbreak has forced closures of businesses and governmental entities throughout the country, resulting in a cascade of financial distress across virtually every economic sector. The nation’s courts have not been immune from disruptions. Nearly all State Courts and Federal District Courts in major metropolitan areas have suspended non-emergency civil proceedings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented economic disruption, creating sudden financial distress across industries. Companies are now facing impacts ranging from a dramatic decline in revenue of uncertain duration, to potential setbacks to M&A transactions, to delayed or canceled financing rounds.

With even some previously well-performing companies potentially entering the so-called zone of insolvency, it’s important to review the fiduciary duties owed by directors and officers and how discharging those duties may change in the face of financial distress.

Seyfarth Synopsis: As OEMs confront the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on an already changing automotive industry, one significant issue will be the inevitable financial challenges that many dealers will face. Financially distressed or, worse, bankrupt dealers, create serious issues for manufacturers and affiliated lenders, including negative publicity, dissatisfied customers, limited or shuttered operations, out-of-trust sales, and litigation.

You’ve been slugging it out with your opponent in state court for years. The end of that hard-fought battle is in sight. Maybe you even hold a judgment already and are taking steps to enforce it. Then, your adversary files bankruptcy, and everything grinds to a halt. You know the automatic stay that arises on account of the bankruptcy filing prohibits you from taking further actions to recover from the debtor outside of bankruptcy court.

Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

Only A Few Rule Amendments This Year. Unlike previous years, there are only four rule amendments expected to take effect on December 1, 2019. Here they are:

Introduction

The U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday to uphold a licensee’s right to continue using trademarks despite the bankrupt licensor’s rejection of the underlying license agreement. As a result, bankrupt brand owners cannot use bankruptcy law to unilaterally revoke a trademark license. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

A Big Answer To A Big Question. After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Here’s the question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC case: