Distressed transactions in bankruptcy court have become big business. Sales under Section 363 of the bankruptcy code provide predictability and reliability (in the form of a court order delivering “free and clear” assets) under even the most turbulent of circumstances. Commonly known simply as “363 sales,” these transactions can provide an opportunistic purchaser with significant upside under the right circumstances. But the truly opportunistic buyer will need to buckle up and be prepared to move with lightning speed in a highly competitive and transparent forum.
Though bankruptcy filings are down in 2021, the expiration of the Paycheck Protection Program and reopening of the courts nationwide could lead to a rise in bankruptcy filings with many businesses still struggling to cope with the economic and supply chain aftereffects of the pandemic and consumer purchasing habits. These bankruptcies, in turn, will have an inevitable ripple effect on creditors and other claimants, whose abilities to collect on claims and exercise rights, are significantly restricted by the automatic stay.
On June 10, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an amended complaint for civil money penalties and other relief under Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” and Section 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) prohibiting the use of fraudulent statements to obtain consumer information.
On June 17, 2021, President Biden signed Senate Bill 475 into law, making “Juneteenth” a federal holiday. Because June 19th (tomorrow) falls on a Saturday this year, the day will be observed by federal government offices on June 18, 2021 (today).
This new law, revising the list of federal holidays in the U.S. Code, will affect consumer credit lenders’ operations. It is important for lenders to review their processes to determine how this new holiday will impact their operations.
Earlier in the pandemic, our team identified the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 as a growth opportunity for businesses with the vision and the resources to take advantage. One such opportunity is the chance to diversify or grow by acquiring distressed competitors, suppliers, or customers.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background
When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?
Changes in Farm and Agriculture Bankruptcy
In 2019, the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) and the Family Farmer Relief Act (FFRA) were passed to help American farmers who have seen an increase in financial difficulties. Recently, farms have seen a rise in debt due to market disruptions, poor weather, and lower income. The SBRA and the FFRA were passed in order to increase the ease and accessibility of Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 bankruptcies.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created financial distress across many sectors of the economy. As a result, there is a good chance that your business has, or soon will, be forced to deal with a customer bankruptcy. When your customer files for bankruptcy, all is not necessarily lost. The strategic actions you take, in consultation with an experienced attorney, before and during a bankruptcy can help improve your odds of recovery.
On September 2, 2020, the Fifth Circuit declined to void a fee award of nearly $2.3 million in favor of an employer that had prevailed on its trade secret theft claim against its former employee, because the employee willfully failed to comply with the bankruptcy court’s “extremely explicit” order regarding his objections to the award.
Background