How can I protect my company from cash flow problems due to outstanding payments?

It is well worth keeping a close eye on your customers to spot any early signs of financial distress and act quickly.

One of the most powerful and oft used devices in bankruptcy is the sale of assets “free and clear” of liens, claims and interests. One issue a buyer at a bankruptcy sale must consider, however, is whether due process has been met with respect to parties whose liens, claims and/or interests are released through such sale. Indeed, a lack of due process could foil a “free and clear” sale, leaving a buyer with an encumbered purchase and nowhere to turn for recourse.

There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.

The linked Mintz Levin client advisory discusses a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held a “make-whole” optional redemption premium to be due upon a refinancing of corporate debt following its automatic acceleration upon bankruptcy.

In a recent decision (“Energy Future Holdings”) poised to have wide-reaching implications, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and the District Courts to hold that a debtor cannot use a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to escape liability for a “make-whole” premium if express contractual language requires such payment when the borrower makes an optional redemption prior to a date certain.

In May 2015, I wrote an article about the conflicting lower court decisions in Raithatha –v- Williamson and Horton –v- Henry, concerning undrawn pension entitlements and income payment orders. The Court of Appeal has now finally handed down its long expected Judgment.

Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.

When someone is made bankrupt, their interest in the family home vests automatically in their Trustee in Bankruptcy, upon his or her appointment. The Trustee has 3 years from the date of the bankruptcy order to realise this interest. The Trustee will first of all ask if a third party is willing and able to purchase the Trustee’s share, usually 50% of the available equity. If that is not possible, then the Trustee will request that the property is put on the market for sale. As a last resort, the Trustee can apply to the Court for an order for possession and sale of the property.

Under the insolvency legislation, any dispositions of property or payments made by a company after it has been presented with a winding up petition are void, unless validated by the Court.