The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of RCAP (“Board”).

The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) has held that National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot exercise its residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to adjudicate upon the contractual dispute between the parties.

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of SIFL and SEFL.

The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:

1) The step has been taken owing to governance concerns and defaults by SIFL and SEFL in meeting their various payment obligations.

On December 14, 2020, Judge Marvin Isgur of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, issued an important decision in the CEC Entertainment, Inc. (Chuck E. Cheese) bankruptcy case, Case No. 20-33163, denying the Debtors’ motion to abate their obligations to pay post-petition rent due to government shutdown orders issued as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Memorandum Opinion [Dkt. No. 1492].

In a case litigated by the authors, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in In re Marzieh Bastanipour, Case No. 20-1373 (7th Cir. June 10, 2020) that Chapter 13 debtors are not permitted in forma pauperis fee waivers absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.

In 2018, the Debtor, Marzieh Bastanipour, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This was the third Chapter 13 petition filed by the Debtor since 2013.

Force majeure clauses and the doctrines of impossibility and/or impracticability remain among the most-discussed legal topics of the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts across the country, finally open, are grappling with those issues and giving some insight as to how these topics may play out in future cases.

Seyfarth Synopsis: In acquiring a company in bankruptcy, there is often a tendency to think this guarantees the purchaser will be “free and clear” of any liability (including so-called “successor liability”). This is not necessarily so with wage and hour liability, particularly if the purchaser merely continues to operate virtually the same business that was acquired.

Courts continue to address constitutional and statutory challenges to COVID-19-related legislation and governmental orders. Among them, courts are examining eligibility for PPP loans under the CARES Act, as well as the constitutionality of “stay at home” and similar orders restricting activities.

PPP loans under the CARES Act

The COVID-19 pandemic and the drastic measures taken in an effort to mitigate its adverse impact have sent shock waves throughout the US and global financial systems. COVID-19 and measures including travel bans, shelter-in-place orders and widespread business closures have caused precipitous changes in customer spending and demand, supply chain disruptions, sharp declines in revenue and other operational challenges across a wide range of economic sectors. Businesses worldwide now confront unprecedented and mounting challenges and distress.

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.