Distressed transactions in bankruptcy court have become big business. Sales under Section 363 of the bankruptcy code provide predictability and reliability (in the form of a court order delivering “free and clear” assets) under even the most turbulent of circumstances. Commonly known simply as “363 sales,” these transactions can provide an opportunistic purchaser with significant upside under the right circumstances. But the truly opportunistic buyer will need to buckle up and be prepared to move with lightning speed in a highly competitive and transparent forum.
Overview
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico added its voice to the split in judicial authority on whether a lien or similar transfer can be avoided under sections 544, 547, 548 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code where only the debtor itself may benefit from the avoidance. Judge Thuma in his recent decision in U.S. Glove, Inc. v. Jacobs (In re U.S. Glove, Inc.), AP No. 21-1009, 2021 WL 2405399 (Bankr. D. N.M.
Though bankruptcy filings are down in 2021, the expiration of the Paycheck Protection Program and reopening of the courts nationwide could lead to a rise in bankruptcy filings with many businesses still struggling to cope with the economic and supply chain aftereffects of the pandemic and consumer purchasing habits. These bankruptcies, in turn, will have an inevitable ripple effect on creditors and other claimants, whose abilities to collect on claims and exercise rights, are significantly restricted by the automatic stay.
A series of related decisions issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the ongoing Fairfield Sentry U.S. redeemer litigation — Fairfield Sentry II,1Fairfield Sentry III,2 and Fairfield Sentry IV3 — provide insight into, among other things, the interplay between the safe harbor provision of section 546(e)4 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”) and chapter 15.
The liquidity-fueled lull in restructuring activity provides both an interesting historical echo of the late 1990s and a useful opportunity for market participants to take note of a deceptively interesting opinion in Giuliano ex rel. Consolidated Bedding, Inc. v. L&P Financial Services Co. (In re Consolidated Bedding, Inc.), Case No. 19-50727, 2021 WL 2638594 (Bankr. D. Del. June 25, 2021) (Shannon, J.).
The Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court’s order, finding that a bank's properly perfected security interest in a debtor’s assets had priority over oil producers’ unfiled, unperfected security interests in oil proceeds, but did not have priority over a statutory lien granted to certain producers under the Oklahoma Lien Act. SeeMatter of First River Energy, L.L.C., 986 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2021). In the case, First River Energy, LLC (the “Debtor”), a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Texas, filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
On June 25, 2021, Inversiones CG Financial Chile Dos S.P.A. and certain affiliates, which manage investments in mainly Chilean financial institutions, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 21-10968). The company estimates $500 million to $1 billion in assets and $1 billion to $10 billion in liabilities.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b) requires a bankruptcy court to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition upon a debtor’s request, even if the debtor filed his or her petition in bad faith.
A copy of the opinion in In re Ronald Smith is available at: Link to Opinion.
Many foreign companies experiencing financial distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic have utilized the American bankruptcy system to restructure. In 2020, major airlines in Chile, Colombia and Mexico availed themselves of Chapter 11 protections. The oil and gas sector, already struggling from a multiyear slump in commodity prices that worsened with the pandemic, also saw a surge in Chapter 11 filings by foreign entities.