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.

Confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan generally requires the consent of each impaired class of creditors. A debtor can “cramdown” a plan over creditor dissent, however, as long as at least one class of impaired claims accepts the plan.

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.

The consequences of an order or judgement being final or interlocutory are enormous. An order from an interlocutory order requires leave since these orders are not appealable as of right. In addition, a failure to obtain leave may result in the issue becoming moot. This is especially so when motions to lift the stay are involved: if the motion is denied and is not immediately appealable, by the time the case is concluded, the issues will most likely be moot.

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.