Unless you are a specialized lender who makes loans to debtors-in-possession, you do not make a loan with the expectation that your borrower is going to file bankruptcy. Although the number of bankruptcy filings in California and nationally is trending slightly lower, filings remain at higher than normal levels. Nearly every lender has received the notice of a bankruptcy filing that was unexpected and then faced decisions as to what to do next.

In the last several months, there have been some significant legal developments that could impact acquisition finance. This article will survey some of the more notable ones.

In a case with implications for buyers of assets in a bankruptcy court-ordered sale under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued a decision limiting the ability of manufacturers that are debtors in a bankruptcy case to sell assets free and clear of future liabilities.

In re Lehman Brothers Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-01420 (JMP) (SIPA), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

In the Matter of Richard Louis Alexander (7th Cir., 2011) U.S. App. LEXIS 17110, (August 16, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re The Colonial BancGroup, Inc., 2011 WL 2792477 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. July 15, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

With the announcement today that the Swedish automaker Saab has filed for bankruptcy, we thought it timely to take a look at what happens to trademarks in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding.  SAAB is the owner of nearly 100 U.S.

Due to the economic crisis of the past few years, many large and medium-sized businesses were forced to file for bankruptcy protection. Now, many businesses are faced with letters from bankruptcy trustees, or worse, a summons where the trustee is seeking liability for a “preference.” Faced with these demands, many businesses are failing to defend themselves, and incurring unnecessary liability. But acting quickly can help protect you and your business and settle preference claims short of expensive litigation.

Recent trade publications have prophesized a wave of shipping bankruptcies. We have already seen several in the United States in 2011, such as Omega and Marco Polo. Trailer Bridge and General Maritime fi led in November. There will undoubtedly be more, despite the potential debtors having little or no connection to the United States. In this respect, non-U.S. listed shipowning companies considering restructuring and reorganization may not factor in the potential for a U.S. main proceeding under Chapter 11 reorganization on the assumption that they do not qualify to be U.S. debtors.

In the course of the next few weeks, Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Omega”), an international shipping enterprise, will find out if motions by certain of their lenders to, among other things, dismiss Omega’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings have been granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.¹ If not, then Omega may be permitted to continue its attempt to reorganize its business under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.

In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.