This past quarter end once again reminded us that the economy remains weak and borrowers who have managed to hang on for the past three or four years are running out of staying power. The topic again arose - what to do when a borrower files bankruptcy? Faced with the prospect of throwing good money after bad, some lenders bury their head in the sand and simply wait it out, often with terrible results. Others charge ahead aggressively and run up large legal bills that are not justified by the amount of the obligation or the difficulty of recovery.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).

More than a year and a half has passed since the Bankruptcy Code was significantly revised pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) which became effective (with some exceptions) on October 17, 2005. While the full impact of BAPCPA will not be fully realized for years to come, it is already apparent that trade creditors stand to benefit significantly as a result of these amendments.

Expanded Administrative Expense and Reclamation Rights

Though the shareholders of a corporation did not sign a corporate sale agreement, they were considered to be the sellers of the corporation, and therefore were entitled to avail themselves of the indemnification provisions under the agreement, ruled the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See In re NuNet, Inc., 348 B.R. 300 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006).

In May of 2006, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chicago, Illinois, issued an 89-page opinion finding that a common stock valuation performed by KPMG (n/k/a BearingPoint) was reasonable and appropriate. The valuation had been performed in September 2000 of high-tech start-up Nanovation Technologies, Inc. After Nanovation filed for bankruptcy in 2001, the bankruptcy trustee sued BearingPoint, alleging that the valuation had been negligently performed and had grossly overvalued the stock.

On April 9, 2008, in the M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. bankruptcy case pending in the Southern District of New York, Chief Judge Stuart M. Bernstein held that a seller of bank debt under the standard LSTA claims transfer documents transfers all of its rights except for those explicitly retained, including unmatured contingent claims, thus giving broad construction to the term “Transferred Rights” under the standard LSTA trade documents.

In the very early hours on September 20, 2008, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court") entered an order (the "Sale Order") approving the sale of substantially all of the assets of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman"), LB 745 LLC and Lehman Brothers, Inc. (collectively, the "Lehman Sellers") to Barclays Capital, Inc. free and clear of all liens claims, encumbrances and other interests.

At the end of the day, what really drives lender decisions with regard to addressing problem loan modifications, workouts, and restructuring issues revolves around the impact of those decisions on the financial statements condition of the institution.

Likewise, the regulatory and accounting treatment behind those decisions tends to dictate policy and procedure for the CRE lending and workout areas of the bank.

In the current economic climate, businesses are likely to take a keen interest in the ability of their suppliers and customers to meet their obligations. This can extend beyond purely financial obligations to include the protection of critical links in the supply chain. A manufacturer may, for instance, be very dependent on one of its suppliers for a specialist part that cannot readily be obtained elsewhere, or a supplier may rely heavily on an intermediary to reach ultimate consumers.

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