On May 2, 2023, the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reversed a bankruptcy court’s ruling that read limitations into the application of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e)’s safe harbor to a stock purchase transaction. Specifically, the District Court relied on the plain language of Section 546 in determining that a chapter 7 trustee could not avoid the transfer of $24.9 million by the debtor to repay a bridge loan in connection with a financed acquisition of the debtor’s stock two years prior to its bankruptcy filing.

On April 17, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion holding that a senior lender who uses economic leverage and exercises its statutory and contractual rights upon a borrower’s default, including the right to credit bid as part of a bankruptcy sale process—despite adverse impact on a junior lender—remains a “good faith” purchaser entitled to the protections under Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A bankruptcy court’s recent decision in Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co., et al. v. Republic Bus. Credit (In re Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co.), Adv. No. 16-03025-SGJ (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021) serves as a reminder for lenders that they should avoid certain actions when dealing with distressed borrowers. Specifically, in Bailey, a bankruptcy judge found a lender squarely at fault for its borrower’s bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation, and held the lender liable to the borrower’s bankruptcy estate for various breach of contract, tort, and bankruptcy claims.

Within the past 18 months, two bankruptcy courts have used the same factors, but reached opposite conclusions, about the characterization of two merchant cash advance funding transactions as either a “true sale” or not a “true sale” – and instead, a disguised financing. In doing so, the courts’ decisions confirm the importance of appropriate structuring to achieve true sale treatment.

On August 16, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an individual guarantor remained liable for more than $58 million in commercial debt, despite the individual’s claims that the lenders induced him to provide the guaranty under duress. See Lockwood International, Inc. v. Wells Fargo, NA, et al., Case No. 20-40324 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021).

Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, qualifying businesses may seek up to $10 million under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for funding payroll and business expenses. The US Small Business Administration (SBA) guarantees the loans, and the full principal amount of the loans and any accrued interest may qualify for loan forgiveness. For many businesses, PPP loans have served as a lifeline during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or the “CARES Act.”The legislation includes a historic $2 trillion aid package intended to stabilize the U.S. economy and provide disaster relief aid to American citizens and businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The emergency aid package, which is by far the largest in American history, contains many provisions focused on providing relief. Among these are certain temporary amendments to Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever