In the midst of the unprecedented global health challenge presented by the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), businesses will almost certainly face pervasive disruptions to operations as the economy experiences widespread financial distress. In light of the dramatic and continuing economic downturn, and with the certainty that almost every business sector has been or will be affected, it is imperative that each company have a plan for handling relationships with companies in financial distress.

Introduction

On February 19, the Small Business Restructuring Act (SBRA) — the most significant change to the Bankruptcy Code in 15 years — went into effect. The SBRA, also known as Subchapter V of Chapter 11, removed numerous barriers that had long prevented small businesses from reorganizing in bankruptcy. On March 27, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) went a step further and significantly expanded eligibility under Subchapter V by raising the debt limit from $2.7 million to $7.5 million. This overview answers key questions about how these new laws work.

On March 27, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz clarified that Executive Order 20-20, which directed Minnesota residents to stay at home, applies to debt collection professionals. Due to ongoing coronavirus (“COVID-19”) concerns, Executive Order 20-20, which will remain in effect until April 10, 2020, orders all persons living in the State of Minnesota to stay at home except to engage in exempted activities and critical sector work.

An increasing number of businesses — even those that have traditionally been financially and operationally sound — are now experiencing unanticipated revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Companies may find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being out of compliance with financial covenants with lenders, unable to meet financial obligations to vendors, in default of contractual obligations, or in need of financial or restructuring/bankruptcy assistance.

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to shake global markets, it is likely that more companies will need to restructure to address liquidity constraints, to right-size their balance sheets, or to implement operational restructurings. In addition to a potential surge in restructurings, the spread of COVID-19 is already having pronounced impacts on companies planning or pursuing restructurings, and further market turmoil may cause even broader changes to the restructuring marketplace.

Potential Increase in Restructuring Activity

Lenders should view as cautionary tales two recently handed down decisions regarding UCC-1 financing statements and the perfection of security interests. On December 20, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas in In re Preston held that security interests in personal property were unperfected because the UCC-1 incorrectly set forth the debtor’s name. On January 2, 2020, the U.S.

A critical bankruptcy litigation issue has finally been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until recently, litigants had been faced with the dilemma of whether to immediately appeal a denial with prejudice of a request for stay relief or wait until the underlying matter had been fully adjudicated. Given the uncertainty, parties remained unsure if they risked losing the ability to challenge the denial of stay relief by a bankruptcy court if they waited to appeal. Now it is clear that they will. In Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, 589 U.S.

On January 27, 2020, FERC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) for rehearing en banc of that court’s decision finding bankruptcy court-FERC concurrent jurisdiction over certain power purchase agreements. Notwithstanding such concurrent jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit’s decision finds that the bankruptcy court’s concurrent jurisdiction is paramount, and that therefore, FERC-jurisdictional power purchase agreements are susceptible to rejection in bankruptcy.

On January 23, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the class action complaint filed by plaintiff Muhammad M. Butt against FD Holdings, LLC d/b/a Factual Data in the case styled, Butt v. FD Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Factual Data. A copy of the Court’s opinion can be found here.