On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, an event considered by many to mark the beginning of the credit crisis of 2008–2009 and the unprecedented public policy responses that followed. Much has been written about the multiple contributing factors to the crisis, ranging from predatory lending to Federal Reserve interest rate policy.

Bankruptcy is always a hot topic among consumer creditors. After all, it is the “necessary evil,” which all lenders learn to address—sooner or later. I want to take a moment to address the aspect of bankruptcy being used as a sword and not a shield as it was intended by Congress.

Last month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the circumstances under which a creditor can assert a “new value” defense to a preference action under section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code—rejecting as dictum language in a prior decision indicating that the new value provided needed to remain unpaid in order to setoff against preference payments. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision also had the effect of narrowing a split among the circuits.

The Background

New Decision Affects D&O Liability

A recent federal bankruptcy court decision addresses important principles of fiduciary conduct (and the benefits of a state exculpatory statute) in the context of a financially distressed not-for-profit hospital.

It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

Companies sell goods or provide services to customers usually on two bases: (1) purchase orders and invoices with references to terms and conditions, or (2) a written sales or supply agreement.

Happy National ESIGN Day! Eighteen years ago this week, Congress passed the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, ensuring the legal validity of contracts entered into using electronic signatures and records. National ESIGN Day was established by Senate Resolution 576 and House Concurrent Resolution 290 on June 30, 2010.

A fact of business today is that customers – both consumers and other businesses – and employees expect to transact digitally. To remain competitive, companies find themselves increasing their efforts to digitally transform their businesses.

The June 20, 2018 decision by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC should prompt those involved in claims trading to reassess transactions where the underlying documents have anti-assignment provisions. Parties to loan transactions outside of a bankruptcy will also benefit from the court’s guidance on when assignments constitute a breach of the operative agreements, rather than being outright void. The lesson for all is that the treatment of an anti-assignment provision under Delaware law turns on the language of the operative document.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated to lenders everywhere, the long-time advice “Get it in writing.” The Court issued its decision in Lamar Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling, Case No. 16-1215 (Sup. Ct. June 4, 2018), holding that a false statement by a debtor about a single asset can be cause for holding the debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy only if the statement is in writing.

On May 22, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Franchise Services of North America v. United States Trustees (In re Franchise Services of North America), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13332 (5th Cir. May 22, 2018). That decision affirms the lower court’s holding that a “golden share” is valid and necessary to filing when held by a true investor, even if such investor is controlled by a creditor.