In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more businesses are finding themselves in distress. According to Forbes, 30 million small businesses across the United States are experiencing financial distress, with half of those blaming the global pandemic for revenue decline. These challenges are especially felt by small businesses who may have limited access to the financial markets and investors as compared to larger companies, both public and private, and especially those whose owners have made personal guarantees on business loans.

In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.

One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act on March 27 was the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. Under the program, small businesses (e.g., those with fewer than 500 employees) — and certain other businesses in specific industries — are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the program, including applying at least 75% of the funds received from the loans to payment of payroll expenses.

One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) was the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Under the PPP, small businesses (businesses with fewer than 500 employees) are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the Program, including applying at least 75% of the loans to payroll. The loans may also be used for payment of interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP loans are capped at $10 million for each small business.

3 Questions Every Company Should Ask Now

Economic stimulus packages, like the CARES Act, will provide some financial relief for Americans reeling from the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Unfortunately, unscrupulous fraudsters will manipulate these financial lifelines and the instability that has taken hold of so many households. This means government investigators across all jurisdictions will be on high alert and more active than ever.

Debtors in bankruptcy, including hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, left out under the CARES Act PPP

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented economic disruption, creating sudden financial distress across industries. Companies are now facing impacts ranging from a dramatic decline in revenue of uncertain duration, to potential setbacks to M&A transactions, to delayed or canceled financing rounds.

With even some previously well-performing companies potentially entering the so-called zone of insolvency, it’s important to review the fiduciary duties owed by directors and officers and how discharging those duties may change in the face of financial distress.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion on December 24, 2019, In re Homebanc Mortgage Crop., No. 18-2887, 2019 WL 7161215(3rd Cir. De. 24, 2019) that has significant consequences for participants in repurchases transactions. The court affirmed the lower court judgment, that the securities had been liquidated in good faith.

Facts

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a safe harbor provision that establishes that a trustee or debtor-in-possession may not avoid a transfer “by or to... a financial institution.. in connection with a securities contract” other than under an intentional fraudulent conveyance theory. On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit in Note Holders v.

In 2007, Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, LP dba Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Plaintiff”) secured a gaming license from Pennsylvania for $50,000,000 with the understanding that it open its casino business within one year. Plaintiff failed to do so and, despite a number of extensions, Pennsylvania cancelled and revoked the gaming license in December 2010. Without a gaming license, Plaintiff found itself in chapter 11 by spring of 2014.