On September 19, 2022, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered an Order¹ adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Chief Bankruptcy Judge² approving the fe

In a decision that may encourage continued sales from suppliers to distressed entities, the Eleventh Circuit in Auriga Polymers Inc. v. PMCM2, LLC1 joined the Third Circuit,2 the only other circuit to directly address the issue, in concluding that post-petition payments for the value of goods received by a debtor within 20 days before the petition date, authorized by 11 U.S.C. section 503(b)(9), do not reduce a creditor's "subsequent new value" preference defense.

I. Preferences in a Nutshell

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 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.

The Court at first instance held that the Applicants failed to establish that the Company was insolvent. The key findings that informed the Associate Judge’s conclusions included the following:

• the funds that were available to the Company to pay its debts included funds in an offset account in the name of the director (and an account in the name of the director’s wife); and
• the Applicants’ claims were based on unreconciled accounts of the Company.

The Applicants were granted leave to appeal and appealed the decision of the Court a quo.

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

The Federal Court has clarified the ability of an assignee of a claim by a liquidator pursuant to s 100-5 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule to rely upon information and documents obtained from a public examination in private proceedings relating to the assigned claim: LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324.

Takeaways:

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.