The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion that should concern anyone doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy. In short, the court ruled that a company that supplied $1.9 million worth of goods to a debtor after the petition date had to return the debtor's payment. The reason? The debtor did not have permission from the court or its secured creditor to use the money. The payments were for value given post-petition and were apparently made in accordance with the pre-petition practice between the parties.
Article L 611-4 to L 611-15 of the French Commerce Code.
Act n° 2005-845 of 26 July 2005, as completed and amended, has created a new out-of-court settlement process known under French law as “Conciliation,” replacing the former amicable settlement or “règlement amiable.”
- In re TOUSA, Inc., 408 B.R. 913 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009). Prepetition lenders could not assert third-party claims against the debtors for breach of contract based on loan document representation that debtor borrowers, on a consolidated basis, would be solvent after the financing transaction because such claims did not depend on the outcome of the fraudulent transfer claims of the creditors, which asserted that individual debtor subsidiaries were insolvent.
- In re Metaldyne Corp., 409 B.R. 671 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).
After more than a decade of rising real estate values, the tide has turned against commercial and development real estate, prompting major builders and developers to commence Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) in 2005, many Chapter 11 cases that revolve around real estate will fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of single asset real estate (SARE) cases and are thus subject to special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code.1 As a result, it is now time to think about SARE.
Introduction
Under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer does not recognize gain or loss on the exchange of like-kind property. Before 1984, the Code did not specifically address so-called deferred exchanges - exchanges in which the taxpayer relinquished property and some time later received the replacement property - although at least one leading case did. The 1984 rules require that the taxpayer identify the replacement property within 45 days after the disposition and close on the replacement property and close within 180 days after the disposition.
Much is being written about the significant losses suffered by automobile suppliers to both the domestic and transplant automobile manufacturers. These losses are creating alarm among many others, including the OEMs themselves, according to Dave Hannon at Purchasing Magazine.
With the country officially in a recession and the lack of available refinancing options continuing, more and more businesses are faced with the realities of foreclosure. While foreclosure often allows a business to wipe the debt slate clean with respect to the foreclosed property, it can also create unintended tax consequences as well as tax planning opportunities.
Recourse v. Non-Recourse Debt
As the economy worsens and the value of corporate assets declines, unsecured creditors are finding that very little, if anything, is left for them at the bankruptcy table after the secured creditors have taken as much as they can from a debtor’s assets. Now, after a period of having copious credit available on attractive terms, debtors are going into bankruptcy without sufficient assets to pay even their secured creditors in full. In such circumstances, prospects for unsecured creditors are bleak indeed.