The South Bay Law Firm Law Blog highlights developing trends in bankruptcy law and practice. Our aim is to provide general commentary on this evolving practice specialty.
 





 
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  •  
      RSS
    Comments RSS
    Log in
       
      Insolvency News and Analysis - Week Ending December 5, 2014
    Insolvency News and Analysis - Week Ending November 21, 2014
    Insolvency News and Analysis - Week Ending November 14, 2014
    Insolvency News and Analysis - Week of November 7, 2014
       

    Insolvency News and Analysis – Week Ending November 21, 2014

    Friday, November 21st, 2014
    English: The Supreme Court of the United State...

    The Supreme Court of the United States. Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Trends

    Ch. 11s Fall 24 Percent in Week Ended Nov. 14 from Year Ago Pace

    Third Quarter Review

    Legislation and Rules

    A Dozen Reforms the ABI’s Bankruptcy Reform Commission Report Should Endorse

    Amendments Adopted by the Supreme Court to be Effective December 1, 2014

    Jurisdiction

    Thoughts on a New Age of Consent: What Does Consent Mean with Respect to Stern Claims?

    Secured Claims

    ‘Stripping Off’ Mortgage Cases Going To High Court

    Avoidance and Recovery

    NOLs – A Recoverable Transfer?

    Positive Health Of The Fraudulent Transferee’s Good Faith Defense

    Sales

    Buyer Beware: Payment On Assumed Debt In An Asset Sale Could Be An Avoidable Preference

    Confirmation

    Cramdown Hurdles Round 2: Confirmation Can Be An Elusive Prize

    Cross-Border

    Chapter 15 Bankruptcy: Game-Changer or False Dawn?

    Forty-Four Percent of Chapter 15s Filed in S.D.N.Y. in 2014

    Suntech Chapter 15: Moving COMI and Establishing Jurisdiction Held Legitimate and Not Improper Manipulation

      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    Insolvency News and Analysis – Week Ending November 14, 2014

    Saturday, November 15th, 2014
    English: The John Minor Wisdom U.S. Courthouse...

    The John Minor Wisdom U.S. Courthouse, home of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Trends

    Year-Over-Year Bankruptcy Filings Continue to Decline

    Claims

    Recharacterization: When Your “Loan” Becomes a “Capital Contribution”

    Avoidance and Recovery

    The Problem with Preferences

    Executory Contracts and Leases

    When termination is not termination: Bankruptcy Courts views on leases

    Reorganization

    Bankruptcy Court Bars Future Claimant from Seeking to Avoid Effect of Discharge

    Cross-Border

    In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd: Second Circuit Holds Sale of SIPA Claim by Chapter 15 Debtor Subject to Section 363 Review

      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    Insolvency News and Analysis – Week of November 7, 2014

    Friday, November 7th, 2014
    English: The John Minor Wisdom U.S. Courthouse...

    English: The John Minor Wisdom U.S. Courthouse, home of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Trends

    Year-Over-Year Bankruptcy Filings Continue to Decline

    Current Developments

    Recent Developments in Bankruptcy Law

    Secured Claims

    Recent “Family Farmer” Case Shows How Secured Creditors Can Avoid Being Plowed Down By Unfair Cramdown Provisions

    The Bankruptcy Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the Limited Rights of Secured Creditors in Bankruptcy

    Lenders take note of recent Fifth Circuit bankruptcy decision

    In re Motors Liquidation: No Intent Required for UCC-3 Termination Statement to be Effective

    Avoiding Collateral Damage: In re Motors Liquidation and the Effectiveness of UCC Termination Statements

    Administrative Claims

    In re World Imports: Court Denies Section 503(b)(9) Claims of Sellers Who Did Not Ship Goods Directly to the Debtor

    Proofs of Claim

    Think Twice: Signing Proofs of Claim for Clients

    Avoidance and Recovery

    Is this Harbor Safe? Second Circuit Set to Explore Limits of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e)

    New Value Does Not Need to Remain Unpaid

    Give and Take: Delaware Bankruptcy Court Dismisses Trustee’s Turnover and Avoidance Claims Relating to Debtor’s Net Operating Losses

    Ordinary Course of Business Preference Defense Clarified in a Recent SDNY Bankruptcy Court Decision

    Sales

    Opportunistic Acquisitions: Buying Assets Through Bankruptcy

    Liquidations

    Stop in the Name of Equity: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Appeals in Chapter 11 Liquidation Proceedings as Equitably Moot

    Reorganizations

    Momentive Postscript – Bankruptcy Rule 3018: Vote Changing on Chapter 11 Plans: You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too

    Cross-Border

    Corporate Bankruptcy Tourists Land in U.S.

      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    Insolvency News and Analysis – Week Ending October 17, 2014

    Friday, October 17th, 2014

    English: Woolworth's, Banbridge (3of3) See 110...

    Involuntary Petitions

    LLP: When Is A Partnership Not a Partnership (And Who Cares)?

    Sales

    Fiduciary Considerations for Pre-Bankruptcy Transactions

    In re NE Opco, Inc: Section 363(f) Bars Pre-closing Claims Arising from Purchaser’s Alleged Wrongdoing Occurring After Entry of Sale Order

    Claims

    Environmental Claims: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

    Dismissal

    #Hashtag: Thinking of Starting Your Own Marijuana Business?

    Cross-Border

    Second Circuit Fails to See the Comity in Chapter 15

     

      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    Insolvency News and Analysis – Week Ending October 10, 2014

    Friday, October 10th, 2014

    Current Events

    Commercial Restructuring and Bankruptcy News (ReedSmith, LLP)

    Venue

    The Short Case for Venue Reform

    Procedure

    Proposed Bankruptcy Rule and Official Form Changes

    Secured Claims

    Just When You Thought You Were Out, They Pull You Back In

    Credit bidding challenges in bankruptcy

    Administrative Claims

    When Are Goods “Received” by the Debtor? Establishing International Suppliers’ Entitlement to 503(b)(9) Administrative Expense Claim

    Executory Contracts, IP, and Licensing

    Questioning the Executoriness of Trademark Licenses in Integrated Agreements

    Avoidance and Recovery Actions

    Dilution Of Corporate Stock As A Fraudulent Transfer In Antonello

    R-E-C-O-V-E-R: Find Out What It Means to the Third Circuit

    Strong Arm Powers: What Can Be Done With An Avoided Lien?

    Uniform Voidable Transactions Act Approved by Uniform Law Commission to Replace UFTA

    Subordination and Recharacterization

    Focusing on Intent in Recharacterization Analysis, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Ruling Indicates that Creditors Seeking Derivative Standing Face High Hurdle

    Bankruptcy Sales

    Opportunistic Acquisitions: Buying Assets Through Bankruptcy

    Sales Free and Clear: What About Restrictive Covenants?

    Conversion and Dismissal

    Taking a Stand Where Few Have Trodden: Structured Dismissal Held Clearly Authorized by the Bankruptcy Code

    Cross-Border

    Brazilian Reorganization Plan: Fundamentally Fair or Wholesale Trampling of Creditors’ Rights?

    U.S. Causes of Action and Attorney Retainer Fund Sufficient Assets for Chapter 15 Recognition

    A “Second Bite” from the Second Circuit: Revisiting Section 363 Review of Transfers in Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Cases

    Second Circuit Holds That a Sale by a Chapter 15 Debtor in a Foreign Main Proceeding of a Claim Against an Obligor Located in the U.S. Must Be Reviewed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code

    Related articles

      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    Insolvency News and Analysis – June 20, 2014

    Friday, June 20th, 2014
    Alphabetical by Author

    Alphabetical by Author (Photo credit: woohoo_megoo)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Bankruptcy and Insolvency News and Analysis – Week of June 16 – 20, 2014:

    Confirmation:

    Prevalence and Utility of Roadmap Decisions in Mega-Cases

    No Confirmation Without Representation: New Test Is Proposed for Approval of a Debtor’s Proposed Slate of Post-Confirmation Officers and Directors

    Bankruptcy Sales:

    Bankruptcy Sale: No Stay Pending Appeal, Then No Appeal?

    Secured Lending and Claims:

    An L of a Mess: Perfecting Against LLP’s

    Equity Begets Flexibility: Valuing a Secured Creditor’s Claim in Bankruptcy and Allocating Post-Petition Interest

    Avoidance Actions:

    Seventh Circuit Reads Bankruptcy Safe Harbor Broadly

    Defending Preference and Claw-Back Actions in the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Bellingham Decision

    Executory Contracts and Intellectual Property:

    Contract Remedies in the Face of Imminent Default – What Happens to State Law Adequate Assurance and Anticipatory Breach in Bankruptcy?

    Eighth Circuit reconsiders trademark licenses in bankruptcy

    Cross-Border:

    Comity and drama: current trends in cross-border insolvencies

    Jurisdiction and Bellingham Analysis:

    Supreme Court’s decision in Bellingham leaves key Stern v Marshall questions unanswered

    And Still More:

      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    Bankruptcy News and Analysis – June 13, 2014

    Friday, June 13th, 2014
    Newspaper

    Newspaper (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Asset Ownership

    Bankruptcy Estate: When Is A Joint Venture A Partnership (And Who Cares)?

    Secured Claims

    –  Circuit Court Affirms Bankruptcy Court’s Broad Discretion to Re-Value Collateral in Determining Creditor’s Entitlement to Post-Petition Interest

    Sales

    –  Liens and Interests Jettisoned [In] Asset Sales “Free and Clear”

    Avoidance Actions

    –  Did the Second Circuit Get SLUSA Right in the Madoff Ponzi Scheme Case?

    –  LLC Membership Transfer: Is Expulsion of a Member a Preferential Transfer?

    –  How Safe Is the Section 546(e) Safe Harbor?

    Cross-Border

    –  Limits of the Bankruptcy Code: Foreign  Restructuring Tools in a Czech Environment

    Environmental

    –  Clean Up for What?! After Enough Time, You Can Leave Your Mess Behind

    Tax

    Partnership Bankruptcy Tax Issues

    SCOTUS Rulings

    –  Did Law v. Siegel Sound the Death Knell for the Equity Powers of the Bankruptcy Court?

    –  Breaking News: Unanimous Supreme Court Closes Statutory Gap, Leaves Other “Core” Stern Questions For Another Day (Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison)

    –  Applying Its Stern v. Marshall Ruling On The Power Of Bankruptcy Courts, The U.S. Supreme Court Issues A Narrow Decision In Executive Benefits Case

    Other Stories

      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    Recent Insolvency and Bankruptcy Headlines – June 6, 2014

    Friday, June 6th, 2014

    Some of the week’s top bankruptcy and restructuring headlines:

    English: Part of Title 11 of the United States...

    English: Part of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code) on a shelf at a law library in San Francisco. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

     

    Trends

     

    Business Bankruptcy Filings Off 21% Year-Over-Year

     

    Less Than 1M Filings This Year?

     

    – LBO Defaults Set to Reach A High This Year, Fitch Says

     

    The Changing Nature of Chapter 11

     

    Cross-Border

     

    Cross-Border Issues: Misconduct No Grounds for Termination of Chapter 15

     

    – Liquidators urge speedy action on Hong Kong corporate rescue bill

     

    Financing

     

    DIP Dimensions: Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC”s Financing Fracas

     

    Avoidance Actions

     

    Avoidance Actions: Subsequent New Value Defense, Good Faith Defense, and Section 546(e) Safe-Harbor

     

    Ponzi Schemes:  11th Circuit Opines on “Property of the Debtor”

     

    – Thelen Ruling Highlights Evidentiary Issues in Fraudulent Transfer Case

     

    Bankruptcy Sales

     

    Limits On Credit Bidding and Section 363(k):  Another Court Follows Fisker

     

    – Successful Bidder Must Pay Damages (In Addition to Forfeiting Deposit) After Backing Out of Sale – At Least in Certain Circumstances

     

    – Upsetting a Bankruptcy Auction: Money Talks

     

    Never Do This: A Lesson On What Not To Do In a Section 363 Auction

     

    Confirmation

     

    Plan Confirmation:  The Tax Man Cometh . . . And Getteth Impaired

     

    Claims

     

    Debt Recharacterization: In re Alternate Fuels: Tenth Circuit BAP Holds Recent Supreme Court Decisions Do Not Limit Power to Recharacterize Debt to Equity

     

    – . . . And More Debt Recharacterization: In re Optim Energy: Court Denies Creditor Derivative Standing to Seek Recharacterization of Equity Sponsors’ Debt Claims

     

     

     

    And Still More:

     

    Related articles

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta
      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    An Unexpected Tribute to Émile Zola

    Wednesday, July 10th, 2013
    Portrait of Émile Zola (1848), by Édouard Manet

    Portrait of Émile Zola (1848), by Édouard Manet (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    “The humorist Douglas Adams was fond of saying, ‘I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.’ But the law more often follows Benjamin Franklin’s stern admonition: ‘You may delay, but time will not.’ To paraphrase Émile Zola, deadlines are often the terrible anvil on which a legal result is forged.”

    With these words, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week declined to retroactively extend Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c)’s deadline to file a non-dischargeability complaint.  That deadline permits creditors only 60 days following an individual debtor’s initial meeting of creditors (otherwise known as the debtor’s “section 341(a) meeting”) to file a complaint to have certain types of debt determined non-dischargeable, unless a request for extension of the deadline is filed within the same, initial 60-day period.

    The case before the 3-judge panel involved a creditor who had, in fact, previously obtained an extension to file a non-dischargeability complaint – but who, due to internal word-processing difficulties with conversion to the “Portable Document Format” (*.pdf) format now required for electronic filings with federal bankruptcy courts, missed the extended deadline by less than an hour.

    The brief, 14-page decision (available here) upheld prior rulings in the same matter by both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court.  It raised, but did not answer, the question of what happens when a missed deadline is due to external problems (e.g., technical difficulties with the Bankruptcy Court’s filing system), rather than problems with counsel’s IT configuration or office procedures.  But it also declined to recognize an “equitable exception” to the rule in the absence of a Supreme Court directive to the contrary:

    We acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court has not expressly addressed whether FRBP 4007(c)’s filing deadline admits of any equitable exceptions and that lower courts are divided on the issue. See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 457 & nn.11–12 (2004) (declining to decide question and noting circuit split).  We need not, and do not, reach the question of whether external forces that prevented any filings—such as emergency situations, the loss of the court’s own electronic filing capacity, or the court’s affirmative misleading of a party—would warrant such an exception.  See, e.g., In re Kennerley, 995 F.2d at 147–48; see also Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Intern., Inc., 275 F.3d 1164, 1165 (9th Cir. 2002). . . .  In short, absent unique and exceptional circumstances not present here, we do not inquire into the reason a party failed to file on time in assessing whether she is entitled to an equitable exception from FRBP 4007(c)’s filing deadline; under the plain language of the rules and our controlling precedent, there is no such exception.

    Enhanced by Zemanta
      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    When Speaking Up Isn’t Enough

    Monday, May 16th, 2011

    When a retailer becomes insolvent, suppliers or vendors who have recently provided goods on credit typically have the ability to assert “reclamation” rights for the return of those goods.  Retailers may respond to these rights by seeking the protection the federal bankruptcy laws – and, in particular, the automatic stay.

    When a retailer files for bankruptcy while holding goods which are subject to creditors’ “reclamation” rights, what should “reclamation” creditors do?

    Logo of Circuit City, now-defunct US retail chain

    Image via Wikipedia

     

    The Bankruptcy Code itself provides some protection for “reclamation” creditors by providing such creditors additional time in which to assert their claims, and by affording administrative priority for a certain portion for such claims even when they are not formally asserted.

    But is merely asserting a reclamation claim under the Bankruptcy Code sufficient to protect a supplier once a retailer is in bankruptcy?  A recent appellate decision from Virginia’s Eastern District serves as a reminder that merely speaking up about a reclamation claim isn’t enough.

    When Circuit City sought bankruptcy protection in 2009, Paramount Home Entertainment was stuck with the tab for more than $11 million in goods.  Though it didn’t object to blanket liens on Circuit City’s merchandise which came with the retailer’s debtor-in-possession financing, and stood by quietly while Circuit City later liquidated its merchandise throug a going-out-of-business sale, Paramount did file a timely reclamation demand as required by the Bankruptcy Code.  It also complied with what it understood to be the Bankruptcy Court’s orders regarding administrative procedures for processing its reclamation claims in Circuit City’s case.  It was therefore unpleasantly surprised when Circuit City objected to Paramount’s reclamation claim – and when the Bankruptcy Court sustained that objection – on the grounds that Paramount hadn’t done enough to establish or preserve its reclamation rights.

    Paramount appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, claiming that it complied with what it understood to have been the Bankruptcy Court’s administrative procedures for processing reclamation claims.  Paramount argued that to have done more (i.e., to have sought relief from the automatic stay to take back its goods or commenced litigation to preserve its rights to the proceeds of such goods) would have disrupted Circuit City’s bankruptcy case.

    In affirming the Bankruptcy Court, US District Judge James Spencer held that the Bankruptcy Code, while protecting a creditor’s reclamation rights, doesn’t impose them on the debtor.  Instead, a reclaiming creditor must take further steps consistent with the Bankruptcy Code and state law to preserve the remedies which reclamation claims afford.  Merely asserting a reclamation claim under the Bankruptcy Code – or under a Bankruptcy Court’s administrative procedure – isn’t enough:

    “Filing a demand, but then doing little else in the end likely creates more litigation and pressure on the Bankruptcy Court than seeking relief from the automatic stay. . . or seeking a [temporary restraining order] or initiating an adversary proceeding.  In this case, Paramount filed its reclamation demand, but then failed to seek court intervention to perfect that right.  As the Bankruptcy Court held, the Bankruptcy Code is not self-executing.  Although [the Bankruptcy Code] does not explicitly state that a reclaiming seller must seek judicial intervention, that statute does not exist in a vacuum.  The mandatory stay as well as the other sections of the Bankruptcy Code that protect and enforce the hierarchy of creditors create a statutory scheme that cannot be overlooked.  Once Paramount learned that Circuit City planned to use the goods in connection with the post-petition [debtor-in-possession financing], it should have objected.  It didn’t.  To make matters worse, Paramount then failed to object to Circuit City’s liquidation of its entire inventory as part of the closing [going-out-of-business] [s]ales.”

    Let the seller beware.

    Enhanced by Zemanta
      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks