Recently, Japanese bulk-shipping company Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha sought bankruptcy protection in both Tokyo and New York. The company, which features a fleet of 185 vessels used primarily to transport cargo such as limestone, cement and coal overseas, commenced its United States bankruptcy proceedings by filing a Chapter 15 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Labor Day weekend is generally anticipated as offering some final, end-of-summer respite. For the transportation community, however, this past Labor Day weekend (September 35, 2016) was anything but restful. Just before the start of the holiday weekend, Hanjin, Korea's largest containership company, commenced rehabilitation proceedings in South Korea. That proceeding essentially halted Hanjin's vessels bound for the U.S., thereby stranding millions of dollars of goods at sea, until Hanjin's bankruptcy was recognized by a U.S. court in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding.

As most readers are aware, Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. (“Hanjin”) commenced insolvency proceedings in South Korea on August 31, 2016. Shippers, motor carriers, transportation intermediaries, and others are scrambling to react to fluid circumstances surrounding these unfolding developments. For instance, container terminals in Virginia, Los Angeles/Long Beach, and Seattle are reportedly no longer accepting delivery of Hanjin import, export, or empty containers.

Freight brokers are well-accustomed to bankruptcy preference actions. Those actions, which are permitted under the Bankruptcy Code, allow a debtor, trustee or other bankruptcy estate representative to claw back payments made on account of antecedent debt in the 90 days prior to a bankruptcy filing. Trade creditors, especially those in the transportation industry, are often faced with significant preference claims because they provide service to debtors up until (and sometimes after) the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

Not-for-profit entities are not immune from the business cycles, risk of lawsuits and other threats to solvency. Managing the collapse of an organization has always required diligence, but recent IRS enforcement initiatives and a recent District Court decision have made these situations even more troublesome. During the wind-down of a failed organization, there has generally been no personal liability for managers who have chosen to pay some vendors over others (except for certain limited statutory exceptions such as trust fund taxes).