|
|
|
|
Interplay Between the New York State Eviction Moratorium and a Bankruptcy Judge’s Authority to Enter a Dispossess Order |
In 2020, New York State passed the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (“moratorium”). With some exceptions, it suspends eviction and foreclosure proceedings for nonpayment of rent or mortgage against tenants or property owners facing financial hardship. Courts have generally held that state laws imposing eviction moratoriums during the COVID-19 pandemic are constitutional exercises of the state’s police powers. For example, in Elmsford Apartments Associates LLC v. Cuomo, the district court for the Southern District of New York held that the moratorium did not violate the Contract Clause because that clause is subordinate to the power to protect the general welfare of its citizens though the exercise of its police power. In considering the constitutionality of a similar statute, a Texas district court
in Terkel v. CDKC not only upheld the statute as a valid exercise of the state’s police powers, but acknowledged that it was a practice with a long history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CARES Act Modifications to Bankruptcy Provisions Extended to March 27, 2022 |
On March 27, President Joseph Biden signed the COVID-19 Relief Extension Act into law. The Act extends for another full year the provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) that temporarily modified the Bankruptcy Code and the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), or subchapter V of chapter 11. The SBRA was enacted to make chapter 11 more accessible and affordable for small businesses.
The newly signed law extends the CARES Act by amending the language in the two sunset provisions of the CARES Act, allowing the bankruptcy-related modifications to be in effect for two years instead of one. As a result, financially distressed small businesses and individuals will be able to enjoy greater access to bankruptcy relief until March 27, 2022. This article provides a summary of the extended provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third Circuit Holds that Setoff Rights Under § 553 Require “Strict Bilateral Mutuality” and Finds that “Triangular Setoffs” are Unenforceable |
In a recent decision in “a matter of first impression,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit squarely rejected the view that “triangular setoffs” fall within the protective circle of § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code. In so ruling, the court, in its decision in In re Orexigen Therapeutics Inc., adopted the view that “strict bilateral mutuality” is required for § 553 to apply and that parties “cannot transform a triangular set of obligations into bilateral mutuality” with contractual provisions.
Statutory Context
Section 553 states: "Except as otherwise provided in this section and in sections 362 and 363 of this title, this title does not affect any right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt owing by such creditor to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against a claim of such creditor against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case[.]"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young & New Members Committee Leadership for 2021 |
The Young & New Members Committee is proud to announce our new leaders for 2021!
You can also visit the committee's homepage for more newsletter articles, relevant recordings and other committee information.
The committee is always eager to welcome new volunteers. Please contact any member of our leadership team to find out how you can get involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|