In a decision that will have substantial impact on the owners of businesses that seek relief in bankruptcy where the business owners themselves seek releases from personal liability, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in an opinion issued Thursday, June 27, 2024. The case arose from the bankruptcy proceedings of drugmaker Purdue Pharma, owned by Sackler family members. The decision potentially exposes the Sackler family members to personal liability relating to Purdue Pharma’s sale of opioid medications.

In a rare move against long-standing precedent, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reversed course in its district on calculating allowed damages when debtor-tenants in bankruptcy reject commercial leases. This decision could limit landlords’ damage claims if those rejected leases are long term and contain rent escalation clauses. The case, In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC, et al. Case No. 20-12097-MEW (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.

In 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a final rule (“Rule”) that amends Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. part 1006, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). The Rule became effective on November 30, 2021. Because the FDCPA was implemented over four decades ago, the Rule is designed to interpret and further the goals of the FDCPA in present day. The Rule places additional restrictions on debt collection practices and addresses communications regarding debt collection.

Scope of the Rule

The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Seventh Circuit and resolved a split among the circuits in a ruling issued on January 14, 2021, concluding “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).” City of Chicago v. Fulton, 19-357 (Sup. Ct., Jan. 14, 2021). Consequently, a creditor that has properly repossessed or otherwise obtained possession of a debtor’s property prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing will not violate the automatic stay afforded to the debtor under the bankruptcy laws.

On February 19, 2020, the federal Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) took effect, providing qualifying small businesses access to a streamlined and less expensive version of the traditional Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. On the heels of SBRA, and in light of the coronavirus outbreak, the March 27, 2020 enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) provided further relief and opportunity to small businesses by including particular bankruptcy provisions.

Eligibility to File Bankruptcy under the SBRA and CARES Act

The economic havoc unleashed by the COVID-19 crisis in most sectors of the economy will affect businesses and their employees, servicers, customers, and others for the foreseeable future. Among those that are directly and critically affected are banks and other lenders, commercial landlords and tenants, restaurants, and the travel and hospitality industries. All of these areas will see an increase in bankruptcy filings and other insolvency proceedings in the near term. Here is a short guide for some of the issues that will arise in the coming months.

Landlords

For decades, trademark licensees have been at the mercy of their licensors’ petition for relief in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code allows debtor-licensors to reject executory contracts like trademark licenses, relieving them of the obligation to perform under the contract or license. Bankruptcy courts have long been in disagreement over the effect on the trademark licensee upon rejection of such a license. Is the license agreement terminated, leaving the licensee with no ongoing rights to use the trademark?

On November 7, 2018, Illinois State Senator Jason A. Barickman introduced S.B. (Senate Bill) 3643. This legislation is aimed at creating more transparency in asbestos litigation in the state by stipulating that at the outset of litigation, defendants would be given access to claim forms that plaintiffs have submitted to trust funds that bankrupt companies have established in order to compensate victims of asbestos exposure.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated to lenders everywhere, the long-time advice “Get it in writing.” The Court issued its decision in Lamar Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling, Case No. 16-1215 (Sup. Ct. June 4, 2018), holding that a false statement by a debtor about a single asset can be cause for holding the debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy only if the statement is in writing.

Recent years have seen many prominent retailers filing for bankruptcy, such as The Sports Authority, Toys “R” Us, The Limited, Coldwater Creek, Radio Shack, and Charming Charlie. This wave is expected to continue into 2018, and commercial landlords need to know their rights (and obligations) when their tenants file for relief in bankruptcy. The rules governing leases in bankruptcy are lengthy and complex, but landlords should pay particular attention to the main issues that typically arise in a tenant bankruptcy.