The recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) contains important temporary amendments to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including several that impact both landlords and tenants under commercial real estate leases.

Small-business debtors can seek an additional extension of time to pay rent

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), enacted in December 2020, expands on the advantageous reorganization terms already available for distressed companies under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Now, reorganizing companies have more time to decide whether to keep or reject real property leases and can stretch out lease obligations under a reorganization plan. These benefits build on the important advantages already available in Subchapter V:

For the past several months, businesses across the country have grappled with the question of whether the pandemic and local “stay at home” or “shelter in place” orders aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19 trigger force majeure clauses in their leases and other contracts. In one of the first cases to consider this question, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois held in In re Hitz Restaurant Group that a restaurant tenant was entitled to a rent reduction under its force majeure clause due to Illinois Gov. J.B.

The recently enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act expands the application of the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA) to more distressed businesses. The SBRA gives qualifying businesses and their owners more leverage to reorganize in bankruptcy court over the objection of creditors. The SBRA process is also less expensive and more streamlined than a typical Chapter 11 case.

In 8-1 decision resolving circuit court split, U.S. Supreme Court holds that bankrupt company’s rejection of executory contract containing trademark license constitutes breach of contract, not its rescission or termination, and licensee retains its rights under the license.

Collateral descriptions in financing statements are often an afterthought for secured creditors, and are frequently prepared in the simplest way possible, sometimes due to carelessness, sometimes because the debtor wishes to maintain its privacy by not disclosing specific pieces of collateral or investments, and sometimes due to administrative simplicity to minimize the cost and hassle of future amendments to financing statements in deals where the debtor regularly exchanges collateral of the same type.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could settle a decades-old debate surrounding the fate of trademark licenses in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court granted Mission Product Holdings’ petition for a writ of certiorari from the First Circuit’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.

The receipt of make-whole premiums, including during a bankruptcy after acceleration of the notes, is of paramount importance to noteholders. Decisions in some recent cases in New York and Delaware bankruptcy and federal district courts have held that note purchase agreements or indentures must include an express agreement that the make-whole premium (or similar prepayment premium) is payable upon acceleration (rather than prepayment) after the filing of a bankruptcy proceeding. In the recent Momentive decision (In re MPM Silicones, LLC), for example, the U.S.

Today the Federal Trade Commission announced a new rule directed specifically at regulating the debt relief industry. Initially proposed eleven months ago, the new rule implements a vast set of requirements and prohibitions, including an absolute ban on charging any fees to consumers before settlements are reached with creditors.

A new bill introduced in California would prohibit debt settlement providers from charging any fees in excess of 15% of the amount of consumers’ savings as a result of any settlement.

The Debt Settlement Consumer Act (Senate Bill 708) was introduced in February 2011 by State Senator Ellen Corbett (R-San Mateo), who headed the California Senate Judiciary Committee that stopped a proposed regulation (Assembly Bill 350) last year that had drawn support from the debt settlement industry. The bill is supported by the Center For Responsible Lending and the Consumers Union.