One of the fundamental principles of commercial law is the freedom to contract with a particular party, or to refuse do so. "As a general rule, businesses are free to choose the parties with whom they will deal, as well as the prices, terms and conditions of that dealing." See Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009). However, the Bankruptcy Code may permit a court to alter this fundamental principle in certain circumstances. A bankruptcy court did just that in In re Mathson Industries, Inc., 423 B.R. 643 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
In re Shubh Hotels Pittsburgh, Inc., Bankr. No. 10-26337JAD (Bankr. W.D. Pa. July 24, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
This article is Part Seven in a seven-part series on how to structure sales and what to do when your customer fails to pay.
When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.
I. Summary
California’s AB 506 process was intended to help a municipality in restructuring its debt obligations and avoid bankruptcy. However, the lessons of the bankruptcies of the City of Stockton, the Town of Mammoth Lakes and the City of San Bernardino support the reality that a meaningful restructure requires material involvement by the major stakeholders. California’s recent wave of municipal bankruptcies tend to show that the AB 506 process has not changed this reality, but rather made a difficult process longer and more arduous.
A recent decision by the Second Circuit underscores the importance to debt collectors of accurately describing the options available to a student loan borrower in bankruptcy, even a borrower who previously filed but did not seek the determination of undue hardship that would have been a necessary predicate to any discharge.
Judges Kevin Carey and Mary Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued opinions in In re Tribune Co.1 and In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC2, respectively, that shake up the landscape for restructuring real estate investments with multiple layers of debt.
Section 382 limits a loss corporation’s ability to use its Net Operating Losses (NOLs) carryforwards following an "ownership change."1 An ownership change is triggered if one or more "5-percent shareholders" of the loss corporation increase their ownership in the aggregate by more than 50 percentage points during a testing period. Following an ownership change, the "Section 382 limitation" generally reduces the ability to use NOLs to offset taxable income in any post-change year.2