In Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re TOUSA, Inc.), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in which the Bankruptcy Court avoided the liens given by TOUSA’s subsidiaries to new lenders and permitted the recovery of the proceeds of the new loan from other TOUSA lenders that had taken the funds in repayment of their TOUSA guaranteed loans.

Buying natural gas assets from financially distressed companies is an inherently risky proposition.  Even when an attractive prospect is identified, the purchaser has to overcome a number of issues such as clearing up title, including mechanic and materialman liens and getting assignments of contracts and lessor consents.  Assuming these hurdles can be managed, the purchaser is also faced with legacy liability problems ranging from plugging and abandonment and decommissioning costs, unknown claims from interest owners under joint operating agreements, general claims from oil field

In re Vitro, S.A.B de C.V v. ACP Master, Ltd., et al., Case No. 11-33335-HDH-15 (N.D. Tex. 2011), is a decision by a bankruptcy court but contains discussion of the issue often arising in contentious international litigation:  attempts to enjoin proceedings in other countries in favor of proceedings in the U.S., or attempts to enjoin proceedings in the U.S.

Clients often raise questions concerning the enforceability of arbitration clauses in bankruptcy proceedings. While this topic has been hotly debated for many years, a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 671 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2012), reminds us that arbitration clauses are not sacrosanct and can be struck down by the court.

There are many aspects to the purchase of distressed assets that make this type of an acquisition a unique challenge for a buyer. However, the upside of such an acquisition can be great for the educated and patient buyer.

Distressed M&A certainly has risks and it is complicated by the fact that third parties, like judges, receivers and lenders, actively participate in the sale process, which brings uncertainty and a loss of control to the process. Nevertheless, an opportunistic buyer has the potential to acquire assets at a great value and free of many claims.

In In re Crane, the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois recently held that a mortgage can be avoided in bankruptcy if it fails to include the maturity date and the interest rate of the underlying debt within the mortgage document. The court found that failing to include these loan terms on the face of the mortgage as recorded, violated the requirements of Illinois conveyancing statutes, and therefore did not provide the constructive notice to the trustee necessary for preventing the avoidance.

On May 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that security interests and liens granted by subsidiaries of a borrower to refinance obligations owed to the borrower’s lenders constituted fraudulent transfers under section 548(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code in the borrower’s and subsidiaries’ bankruptcy cases.Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2012 WL 1673910 (11th Cir. 2012).

Nearly a year has passed since the Supreme Court held, in Stern v. Marshall,¹ that bankruptcy courts may not determine a potentially broad range of “private rights” disputes arising in bankruptcy proceedings. Lower courts have grappled with the practical implications of Stern, but it is not yet clear whether the decision will ultimately result in a significant curtailment of bankruptcy court power or prove narrower in application.

The outcome of the TOUSA appeal has been much anticipated and closely watched by the lending community, their counsel and advisors, and legal scholars. On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion (found here), reversing the District Court for the Southern District of Florida and affirming the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, at least insofar as to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings, but not remedies.

A purchaser of assets from a debtor in bankruptcy may not be able to rely entirely on bankruptcy court approval of the sale to bar a claim arising long after the sale and based on a claimed defect in a product sold by the debtor years prior to its bankruptcy.

Although bankruptcy court sale orders routinely shield asset purchasers from successor liability claims, that protection is not unlimited, particularly where a claimant did not and could not have received notice of the sale.