A Section 363 sale is a sale of a company's assets pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court will approve a 363 sale if the debtor can demonstrate a "substantial business justification" for the sale.

Key Issues

In general, Section 363 bankruptcy sales proceed as follows:

This article, part of our Creditor’s Rights Toolkit [link] series, serves as an essential guide for vendors navigating the complex landscape of dealing with financially distressed or bankrupt customers. It provides a detailed exploration of the options available to vendors who are proactive and quick to act when they learn of their customer’s financial woes.

Your customer, who has always paid on time, has started to fall behind on payments and maybe has even started to short pay invoices. When you inquire about what is going on, your customer has a million excuses but assures you that everything is fine. On the one hand, you want to continue to do business with this long-standing customer. On the other hand, you are worried about the growing accounts receivable and a potential bankruptcy filing by your customer. How can you protect your business?

Key Issues

Successor liability is a catchall term for a group of legal theories that, in certain circumstances, allow a creditor to recover amounts owed by its obligor from a person or entity who succeeds to the assets or business of that obligor. Typically, claimants cannot pursue successor liability against a purchaser in a bankruptcy sale because most sales are made "free and clear" of such claims under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, there are some limited exceptions to this general rule.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several conversion claims brought by the estate of a deceased account holder against a bank, holding that one of the conversion claims was time-barred, and that the estate did not have standing to pursue the remaining conversion claims as the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the bank.

A copy of the opinion in Muff v. Wells Fargo Bank NA is available at: Link to Opinion.

Though controversial, cannabis[1] has steadily grown into a booming industry. Despite this rapid growth and the legalization of cannabis in numerous states[2], cannabis is still classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

In an appeal involving a Chapter 12 bankruptcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed that the borrower’s use of the 20-year treasury bond rate sufficiently ensured that the total present value of future payments to the lender over the plan period equaled or exceeded the allowed value of the claim.

A copy of the opinion in Farm Credit Services of America v. William Topp is available at: Link to Opinion.

In April, we discussed how Colorado’s state supreme court issued its highly anticipated decision confirming a borrower’s bankruptcy discharge does not accelerate secured installment debt or trigger the final statute of limitations period to recover the debt.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida created a three-factor test to help determine the ownership interests of social media accounts. The court in In re Vital Pharm[1] found that (1) documented property interests, (2) control over access, and (3) use, each play a role in establishing ownership over social media accounts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance and fraudulent transfer claims, holding that a debt purchase and sale agreement between a bankrupt debtor, its original creditor, and its new creditor was not avoidable because it did not qualify as a transfer of “an interest of the debtor in property.”

Specifically, the Seventh Circuit determined that the transaction had no effect on the bankruptcy estate and the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions played no role.