While discussions of real estate loan structurings and workouts frequently revolve around protecting the interests of the lender, a borrower has its own interests to look after.
Sellers should be proactive in taking steps to protect themselves from a distressed buyer’s non-payment.
In the current economic downturn, sellers are dealing with many formerly good customers whose financial health is deteriorating. To protect their interests, sellers should assess their rights under applicable contracts and law and develop a strategy to minimize their exposure.
Step 1 – Assess the Parties’ Contractual Rights
The European Commission has approved the plan by the Italian authorities to sell the assets of the airline Alitalia, which had entered into financial difficulties, under a special insolvency procedure. The Commission concluded that the sale of the assets would not constitute a subsidy prohibited under EU State aid rules provided the assets are sold at market value and other conditions have been satisfied. An independent trustee has been appointed to oversee the sale by the administrator assigned under the special insolvency procedure.
Two recent decisions by the Delaware Supreme Court clarify the fiduciary duties owed to creditors by directors of Delaware corporations that are insolvent or operating in the zone of insolvency. First, in North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, the Delaware Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, addressed the ability of creditors to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against directors of a Delaware corporation that is insolvent or operating within the zone of insolvency.
Re Cheyne Finance PLC
The UK courts recently interpreted the definition of insolvency in a way which can lead to an insolvency default being triggered earlier than before.
Investor group “Save the Queen” purchased the historic Queen Mary ship and surrounding land and development rights for $43 million from the previous operator, Queen’s Seaport Development, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2005.
In a case involving a bankruptcy reorganization in which a trustee in bankruptcy was given the right to pursue claims of misappropriation or infringement (but not ownership of the bankrupt’s intellectual property), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court finding that the no trustee had standing to bring suit. Morrow, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case Nos. 06-1512, -1518, -1537 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 19, 2007 (Moore, J.; Prost, J., dissenting).
On October 3, 2007, legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate to amend provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that currently prevent homeowners from using bankruptcy to modify mortgage loans secured by their primary residence. Proponents of the legislation believe that permitting homeowners to modify mortgage loans in bankruptcy will encourage lenders to engage in voluntary modifications prior to bankruptcy.
Decision determines that silica trust and channeling injunction are appropriate under Third Circuit standards.
On September 24, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion recommending confirmation of the Chapter 11 plans of North American Refractory Company (NARCO) and Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT). The decision caps a five-and-a-half-year reorganization for the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based family of industrial companies.
The decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Hutson v. Smithfield Packing Co. (In re National Gas Distributors, LLC)1 poses potentially serious problems for parties trading gas under the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) base contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will soon review this case of first impression about what constitutes a “swap agreement” under the expanded definition included in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code after the 2005 amendments.