On March 10, 2015, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama issued a memorandum decision in the case of Harrelson v. DSS, Inc. (No. 14-mc-03675), declining to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court and holding that the existence of an arbitration agreement and a class action waiver in that arbitration agreement did not require substantial consideration of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Facts

The realities of the bankruptcy venue provisions require potential debtors and their advisers to prudently weigh the legal significance of a bankruptcy filing in various courts. In a recent decision, U.S.

Since its 1989 opinion in Folendore v. Small Business Admin., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed debtors to completely strip off and void wholly unsecured junior liens in Chapter 7 bankruptcies under Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. Complete lien stripping forever prevents creditors from seeking relief against a debtor’s collateral if it is underwater, even if the property value later increases. Since Chapter 7 debtors are also discharged of personal liability, subordinate debt is, in such cases, rendered worthless.

That may soon change.

In an effort to protect the property of a bankruptcy estate, Section 362(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code imposes an automatic stay on most proceedings against a debtor in bankruptcy. The policy of this section is to grant relief to a debtor from creditors, and to prevent a "disorganized" dissipation of the debtor's assets. (See, e.g., U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 2000).) However, the scope of the automatic stay is not all-encompassing.

A recent Delaware District Court decision concerning an appeal of a bankruptcy settlement clearly provides support for the use of tender offers or other exchange, or settlement mechanics permitted under applicable federal securities laws prior to and outside a plan of reorganization. In essence, this decision permits debtors to utilize exchange offers to repurchase outstanding securities at a discount, or obtain more favorable terms during a bankruptcy proceeding and prior to confirmation of a plan of reorganization.

Case Summary

E ven well-intentioned people run into financial difficulty. Unfortunately, falling behind on one’s taxes often leads to a downward spiral, and it is not uncommon for a taxpayer who cannot pay her tax obligations to decide not to file a return. Not only does such a failure to file expose the taxpayer to additional penalties and criminal liability, but it may have devastating ramifications if she subsequently files for bankruptcy.

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (In re Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc.), No. 14-11590 (11th Cir. March 12, 2015), clarifies the circuit’s stance on the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue nonconsensual, non-debtor releases or bar orders and the circumstances under which such bar orders might be appropriate. In addition, the court gave a broad reading of what it means for a plan to have been proposed in good faith.

Judge Drain’s recent bench rulings in Momentive Performance Materials in 2014 generated a great deal of controversy in the distressed debt world.  Distressed investors, lenders, and commentators have questioned whether the Momentive rulings will lead to an industry trend in which debtors seek to cram down their secured lenders to take advantage of the ability to do so at below market interest rates.  

Undersecured creditors may breathe a little easier.  In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the debtors’ request to use an undersecured creditor’s cash collateral, in the form of postpetition rents, to pay estate professional fees, holding that the undersecured creditor was not adequately protected even though the value of its collateral was stable and possibly increasing.  

This case is the product of yet another dispute in the extensive, multi-billion dollar fraud perpetrated by Tom Petters. In 2005, as the sole board member of Petters Group Worldwide, LLC (“PGW”), Petters directed the acquisition of Polaroid, which operated independently and legitimately as a going concern. In late 2007 and early 2008, Polaroid and other Petters companies began experiencing financial difficulties. In January 2008, PGW approached Ritchie about a loan and the next day, Ritchie loaned $31 million to PGW to pay debts of Polaroid and PGW.