A Texas judge rejected a request by one of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative’s (Brazos) creditors to arbitrate a contract dispute with Brazos over a shared coal plant, citing concerns that the arbitration could delay the bankruptcy case. Brazos is currently in a bankruptcy proceeding stemming from the historic 2021 Texas winter storm.

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.

In a case of first impression, the Eleventh Circuit held that Roth IRAs are excluded from Georgia debtors’ bankruptcy estates under the Bankruptcy Code and Georgia’s garnishment statute. In Hoffman v. Signature Bank of Georgia (In re Hoffman), 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2119 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022), the court reversed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order concluding that the debtor’s Roth IRAs were not excluded from his bankruptcy estate.

In Jackson v. Le Centre on Fourth, LLC (In re Le Centre on Fourth, LLC), 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33845 (11th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit rejected creditors’ due process challenge to the release afforded to the debtor’s affiliates in a confirmed Chapter 11 plan.

Florida law provides that a UCC-1 financing statement is “seriously misleading” if it does not include the debtor’s correct name, unless “a search of the records of the filing office under the debtor’s correct name, using the filing office’s standard search logic, if any, would disclose” the financing statement notwithstanding the misnomer. But how much of a search is required?

In an underreported amendment to the Bankruptcy Code, the Small Business Reorganization Act amended §547(b) of the Code to add an explicit requirement for the bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession to conduct “reasonable due diligence” before filing a preference action. The apparent goal of this amendment to the Bankruptcy Code is to reduce the number of frivolous preference lawsuits pursued by trustees.

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).

COVID-19 M&A Lessons

On April 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald (In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.), Case No. 19-2240 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a 2017 law that substantially increased the quarterly fees debtors are required to pay to the Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”) in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.