Summary of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Stimulus Legislation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.27.20
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), a $2 trillion stimulus package, was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives by a voice vote on March 27, 2020 despite opposition from certain Republican members who were seeking a roll call vote. The package was approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate with a vote of 96-0 on March 25, 2020. It is the third coronavirus emergency response bill considered this month in Congress, which passed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act on March 6 and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act on March 18.
The CARES Act was first drafted by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), though after significant resistance from Senate Democrats, the final bill text was principally negotiated by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The broad stimulus package is viewed as a compromise and includes:
- Federal grants, loans, and other assistance for small businesses and other businesses disproportionately affected by the coronavirus outbreak
- Additional funding for hospitals and doctors as they brace for continued and increased pressure on their workforce and systems
- Direct financial assistance to individual taxpayers
- An expansion of unemployment insurance
The following PDF provides a summary of the key provisions included in the Act.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
