United Cannabis Corp. entered into chapter 11 several days ago in an effort to stop various patent infringement claims being lodged against it. Most bankruptcy courts have said that use of the federal bankruptcy laws by companies in the cannabis space is a no go because even if the companies are in compliance with applicable state laws, they are operating in violation of federal law. United Cannabis Corp. mostly deals in hemp based products, the production and sale of which do not violate the Controlled Substances Act.

Among the only certainties for the post-COVID lending world is the uncertainty of commercial real estate values. Among the classes of real estate that surely will be immediately diminished in value are hospitality and most brick and mortar retail, but even the value of industrial and office properties will be closely scrutinized as questions are posed regarding changes in how companies conduct their businesses and which types of businesses will recover most fully.

Last week, in our first of what we expect to be many articles in the series “Bankruptcy On Ice”, we wrote about the unprecedented suspensions of proceedings enacted in several major chapter 11 bankruptcies in response to the temporary store closures and critical protective measures being imposed to fight the spread of COVID-19.

Changes in culture and technology have been reshaping the way Americans acquire and consume goods and services for a generation. Indeed, long before the coronavirus, insolvency professionals and industry experts understood that the retail landscape was experiencing a dramatic transformation. Reduced foot traffic, online competition from Amazon and others, and changing shopping patterns all combined to place enormous strain on traditional retailers.

In Part I of this three part series we noted the likelihood that credit bidding will be more prevalent in today’s unpredictable economic environment and discussed some of the statutory backdrop. Here, in Part II, we will discuss certain mechanics that are associated with making, and later consummating, a credit bid.

In a recent decision addressing valuation issues, the First Circuit has issued an important reminder – and warning – to creditors seeking to establish a secured claim in settlement proceeds based on a security interest in the settled claim. In short, the key lesson for would-be secured creditors is this – the value of a claim is not equal to the value of damages!

The macroeconomic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on nearly all industries is forcing businesses directly and indirectly affected by the global pandemic to consider restructuring alternatives. Since prospective businesses looking to reorganize or liquidate through the chapter 11 process are likely to need immediate cash in order to operate their businesses, these companies often will look to existing or third-party lenders (and in certain cases, stalking horse bidders or customer groups) to provide them with debtor-in-possession financing (DIP Financing).

Faced with the unprecedented challenge of responding to the COVID-19 crisis and its impact on the nation’s economy, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, commonly referred to as the CARES Act. The CARES Act includes several provisions designed to assist individuals and businesses dealing with this emerging economic catastrophe.

For many secured lenders, the concept of credit bidding in bankruptcy is generally understood yet infrequently explored in practice. In today’s extremely uncertain economic environment, third-party alternatives may not present themselves as M&A activity and acquisition financing have slowed significantly with the spread of COVID-19. As a result, credit bidding could gain momentum as lenders look for self-help alternatives to maximize their recoveries.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense to a preference action under § 547(c) applied to a creditor bank that released its liens for less than full payment.

In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit BAP held that the bankruptcy trustee could not recover two of the three payments that the debtor made to the bank during the 90-day pre-petition preference period.