The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) was passed by Congress in 1930 to protect agricultural produce suppliers from unscrupulous vendors who refused to pay the suppliers for their goods.

Decision clarifies standards for priority treatment under section 507(a)(7); important implications in retail bankruptcy cases for debtors, creditors - and consumers

Overview

On March 2, 2016, Sports Authority, Inc. (“Sports Authority”) and six of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware.  The filing will significantly impact Sports Authority’s landlords and trade creditors.  In a press release, Sports Authority stated that it intends to close or sell approximately 140 locations and two distribution centers in the coming months.  The company is also seeking $595 million in post-bankruptcy financing to continue operations.  Sports Authority is a sporting goods retailer with 463 locations in 41 states and Puerto Rico.

Employers scored a big victory in In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, a case of first impression in the Third Circuit, which held that a debtor-employer can terminate their obligations under an expired Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and implement the terms of a final offer.

Click here to view image.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

The Issue and Background

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.