Kang Haggerty News
Many businesses have now turned to the force majeure clauses present in their contracts—invoking the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic is an unforeseeable “act of God” that has hindered the ability of parties to perform their duties as agreed.
In the May 14, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Force Majeure During a Pandemic and Potential Contractual Disputes”
In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, businesses and individuals alike have struggled with following through on contracts that were agreed upon long before the novel coronavirus was even discovered, let alone foreseen as the cause of a worldwide health crisis. Many have now turned to the force majeure clauses present in their contracts—invoking the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic is an unforeseeable “act of God” that has hindered the ability of parties to perform their duties as agreed. For those who do not have such clauses present in their contracts, can the same concept be invoked in a court of law?
While shelter-in-place and other restrictions on business remain in effect due to the pandemic, many expect re-openings (whether gradual, on a timeline, based on industry, or otherwise) are imminent. If you have not adhered to the old adage to “learn from the past lest it repeat itself” maybe now is a good time to review some of your company policies. 
May 6, 2020, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy issued Executive Order 138, which extends the Public Health Emergency declared on March 9, 2020 and extended on April 7, 2020. EO138 is intended to extend the public health emergency for 30 additional days to prevent its expiry as required under the Emergency Health Powers Act. As such, the emergency declaration is renewed for another month.
Although originally slated for May 8, the construction industry in Pennsylvania re-opened a week early on Friday, May 1st, with guidelines imposed by the Commonwealth. All construction businesses authorized to conduct in-person operations in the Commonwealth must adhere to requirements of the guidance, as well as all applicable business and building safety orders issued by the Secretary of Health, though localities may elect to impose more stringent requirements.
In New Jersey, Executive Order 128 addresses landlord and tenant issues due to COVID-19. Finding that the earlier EO106 provides some protection to tenants by staying enforcement of all judgments for possession, warrants of removal, and writs of possession while in effect (unless the court determines otherwise), EO128 suggests that there are other consequences in addition to evictions, such as interest and late fees and negative credit reports. 
In Delaware, Governor John C. Carney issued a Declaration of State of Emergency in connection with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. This month, the Declaration was modified (the Tenth Modification) to address the numerous shareholder meetings to be noticed for Delaware companies. The Tenth Modification, acknowledging that physical gatherings are explicitly discouraged, advise that shareholder meetings be held remotely for the “safety, health and wellbeing of participants”.
On April 22, 2020 the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania executed a Continuation of Judicial Emergency Order, extending the terms issued March 16, 2020 and extended April 1, 2020 by Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order. Under yesterday’s order, the Judicial Emergency in Philadelphia is extended through close of business on May 29, 2020. A summary of the April 1st Order can be found on Kang Haggerty’s blog 
It has been about a month since the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was passed, yet the allocated funds, particularly for small business forgivable loans, were quickly exhausted. To that end, Congress drafted the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement (“PPPHCE”) Act, which passed in the Senate on April 21st, and is scheduled for a House vote tomorrow, Thursday, April 23rd.