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.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland. March 02, 2020

The plaintiffs were various entities who filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in 2001. Their bankruptcy confirmation order set a bar date for the filing of claims by creditors against the entities. Nearly 16 years later, asbestos claimants filed claims for exposure to asbestos in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs then filed suit against the asbestos claimants as an adversarial bankruptcy proceeding. Motions for summary judgment were filed by both sides.

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.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 19, 2020

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, February 18 2020

DELAWARE – The appellants are latent asbestos claimants who did not file by the bar date set by Chapter 11 bankruptcy but who were subsequently diagnosed with mesothelioma. The appellee is Energy Future Holdings Corporation (EFH), which was a holding company for several energy properties. Those subsidiaries became defunct long ago as a result of asbestos litigation. EFH also filed for bankruptcy as a result of vast sums of money owed to asbestos debtors. The reorganization plan called for a notice period to latent claimants followed by a subsequent bar date for claims.