“The right of setoff … allows entities to apply their mutual debts against each other to avoid the pointless exercise of ‘making A pay B when B owes A.’” held the Seventh Circuit on Aug. 17, 2018. Berg v. Social Security Administration, 900 F.3d 864, 868 (7th Cir. 2018). But the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) limits “a creditor’s right of setoff during the ninety-day period prior to the” date of bankruptcy, said the court. Id.

Consider the common commercial loan collection situation: a business debt collateralized by relatively permanent collateral (real property or durable non-mobile equipment such as a printing press) and transient collateral (inventory, accounts receivable and cash).[1] Frequently, there is also potentially recoverable unsecured debt because the collateral is insufficient to pay the entire debt and (a) the collateral does not include all the borrower’s

A defendant creditor in a preference suit may offset (a) the amount of later “new value” (i.e., additional goods) it gave the Chapter 11 debtor against (b) the debtor’s earlier preferential payment to the creditor, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Aug. 14, 2018. In re BFW Liquidation LLC, 2018 WL 3850101 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018). Even when the creditor was paid for the new goods, stressed the court, Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “§ 547(c)(4) does not require new value to remain unpaid.” Id., at *5.

A bankruptcy court properly dismissed a creditor’s involuntary bankruptcy petition “for cause” when it “would serve none of the Bankruptcy Code’s goals or purposes . . . and [when] the sole [petitioning] creditor is not substantially prejudiced by remedies available under state law,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 14, 2018. In re Murray, 2018 WL 3848316, *7 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2018). In its view, the bankruptcy court “declined to serve as a ‘rented battle field’ or ‘collection agency’” for a single creditor. Id., at *7.

A purported conditional sale agreement “created a security interest rather than a lease,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Aug. 7, 2018. In re Pioneer Health Services Inc., 2018 WL 3747537, *3 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018). Affirming the lower courts’ finding “that the relevant agreements were not ‘true leases,’” the court rejected a bank’s “motion to compel payment under [its] contract as an unexpired lease or an administrative expense.” Id., at *1. The economic substance, not the form of the transaction, was decisive.

A lawyer’s usual task is to help solve the client’s current problem: resolve a dispute; close a loan; obtain a permit; avoid a conviction; etc. Lawyers are so task oriented that some consultants advise us to have task specific engagement understandings and send dis-engagement letters when a task is complete. For bankruptcy lawyers representing individuals in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the task at hand is getting clients to and through a confirmed Chapter 13 plan with the promised debt relief and fresh start.

Lawyers representing creditors often compete with federal government claims against the same insolvent borrower/debtor. There are several common federal statutes that impact these disputes including: 11 U.S.C. Section 507[1]; 26 U.S.C. Section 6321[2], et seq.; and 31 U.S.C.

The appellate courts are usually the last stop for parties in business bankruptcy cases. The courts issued at least three provocative, if not questionable, decisions in the past six months. Their decisions have not only created uncertainty, but will also generate further litigation over reorganization plan manipulation, arbitration of routine bankruptcy disputes and the treatment of trademark licenses in reorganization cases. Each decision apparently disposes of routine issues in business cases. A closer look at each case, though, reveals the sad truth: they are anything but routine.

A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank's motion to compel arbitration of a debtor's asserted violation of the court's discharge injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, 20 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2018). Finding a purported "inherent conflict between arbitration of [the debtor's] claim and the Bankruptcy Code," the Second Circuit reasoned that the bankruptcy court "properly considered the conflicting policies in accordance with law." Id., quoting In re United States Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d 631, 641 (2d Cir.

“ . . . [A] bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a [reorganization] plan . . . and/or