Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.

Although there has been much discussion of the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Marblegate, this article addresses a question other commentators have yet to tackle: namely, how the Second Circuit’s decision impacts the Trust Indenture Act’s protection of guarantee obligations included in an indenture. Below we provide our view on how Marblegate affects indenture guarantees. More specifically, we discuss how the decision is consistent with provisions of the TIA that expressly protect a noteholder’s payment rights under a guarantee.

Synopsis

On January 1, 2016, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) was enacted in Kentucky and can be found at KRS 378A.005 e seq.  The UVTA replaces KRS 378, which contained KRS 378.010, the Kentucky fraudulent conveyance statute, and KRS 378.060, the Kentucky preference statute.  Nationally, the UVTA will replace the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).  According to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, California, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, and North Dakota have joined Kentucky in enacting the UVTA. 

On September 18, 2015, Margaret M. Okamoto (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in The United States District Court for the District of Nevada alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the “FCRA”), against, inter alia, Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), Mutual of Omaha Bank (“MOB”), and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).  See Okamoto v. Bank of America et al., No. 2:15-cv-01800-GMN-GWF (Sept. 18, 2015).

In the bankruptcy context, effectively appealing an order confirming a debtor’s plan of reorganization is not always a sure bet, as a court may refuse to entertain the appeal in the name of equitable mootness.  Equitable mootness – “a judge-made abstention doctrine that allows a court to avoid hearing the merits of a bankruptcy appeal because implementing the requested relief would cause havoc”

Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions, including financial institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks for creditors who take collateral, in security for the repayment of debt, containing PII data? What are the risks to businesses when they transfer assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?

Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks to businesses when they sell assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?

Radio Shack – The pioneer of PII data collection