Fulltext Search

As businesses experience diminishing revenues, falling stock prices, and other economic hardships resulting from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), some economists project the possibility of an unprecedented number of business bankruptcies. Some of these businesses own brands, and some have entered into relationships, most commonly trademark licenses, under which they allow others to use their brands. What happens to a trademark license when a brand owner becomes insolvent, particularly in the context of a reorganization under Chapter 11?

The Eleventh Circuit has joined the Second in holding that consent to be called using an autodialer and/or prerecorded messages, given as part of a contract, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. Medley v. DISH Network, LLC, 2020 WL 2092594 (11th Cir. May 1, 2020).

On April 20, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed legislation suspending evictions of many residential and commercial tenants as well as halting the foreclosure of most residential properties. The new law, Chapter 65 of the Acts of 2020, “An Act providing for a Moratorium on Evictions and Foreclosures During the COVID-19 Emergency,” takes effect immediately and will remain in place until the earlier of August 18, 2020 or 45 days after Governor Baker lifts the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency declaration.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), signed into law March 27, 2020, and the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), which went into effect Feb. 19, 2020, provide options for small business debtors considering chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Designed to alleviate costs and create greater efficiencies in the chapter 11 process, the SBRA was modified by the CARES Act to raise the maximum qualifying debt level from approximately $2.7 million to $7.5 million, through March 27, 2021.

In Thakkar v. Bay Point Capital Partners, LP (In re Bay Circle Properties, LLC), 2020 WL 1696303 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal because the only appellant remaining after a settlement lacked Article III standing (and in any event failed to meet the “person aggrieved doctrine” standard for appealing a bankruptcy court order).

Enacted March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) places short-term obligations and restrictions on lenders and servicers of federally backed loans. As part of these limitations due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), lenders and servicers are temporarily subject to moratoriums on foreclosures, mandatory forbearance obligations, and revised credit reporting obligations.

During the Global Financial Crisis, borrowers who needed to refinance their maturing debts faced difficulty. Lenders had neither the appetite nor the ability to lend, save in limited circumstances. The income generated by commercial real estate assets often did not change, however.

On 28 March, UK Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced that the rules relating to ‘wrongful trading’ will be suspended on account of the issues that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents.

Both the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by governments have led to unprecedented legal questions that require immediate attention and solutions. These are challenging times. We have therefore prepared the following overview of some of the pertinent legal questions and the answers to consider, in the hope they provide useful preliminary guidance.

Topic

Main issues in relation to the risk of director liability

Question

On 23 March 2020, the German Federal Cabinet adopted further urgent measures to mitigate the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The package of measures includes an emergency aid programme for micro-enterprises, self-employed persons and freelancers of up to EUR 50 billion and an economic stabilisation fund of EUR 600 billion as well as a Law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil law, insolvency law and criminal proceedings.