The March 2013 Commercial Financial Services Brief included a cautionary tale about a secured party’s inadvertent loss of its security interest in its borrower’s bankruptcy case as a result of the secured party having mistakenly filed a UCC termination statement. This article describes another situation in which a secured party experienced a similar haunting outcome.
A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York1 found that a UCC-3 termination statement filed on behalf of a secured creditor was not effective because it lacked the proper authorization.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Eighth Circuit held on March 25, 2013, that a lender “lost its possessory lien when it turned the Debtor’s account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection.” In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., _____ B.R. 2013 _____, 2013WL 1188041, *5 (8th Cir. B.A.P. March 25, 2013) (emphasis added).
A bankruptcy court in Texarkana, Texas held that breaches by two debtor-franchisees of a non-competition covenant in their franchise agreement with a print shop franchisor qualified for discharge through bankruptcy. As the court noted, in addition to equitable remedies such as injunctive relief, Michigan law (under which the franchise agreement was governed) allowed for the award of monetary damages as compensation for violation of a non-competition agreement. Because monetary damages were an available remedy, the court reasoned, the breach of the covenant qualified as a dischar
The U.S. Trustee in American’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings is challenging American’s $19.8 million golden parachute for its CEO Tom Horton.
Recently, the Fifth Circuit decided a case regarding the appropriate interest rate to be charged when a secured creditor's claim is "crammed down," pursuant to section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Code), 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532. Unfortunately, the decision does little to clarify the confusion precipitated by the Supreme Court's 2004 decision of Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), and perhaps even adds to it.
In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Western Real Estate Equities, LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., No. 12-10271 (5th Cir. 2013), the court held that the acceptance vote from a minimally and “artificially impaired” class of claims meets the 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10) requirement for the confirmation of a non-consensual “cramdown” chapter 11 plan.
The homestead exemption is important to the many debtors in bankruptcy who own their own homes. But what if the debtor owns the home through his or her single-member LLC? Is that good enough? A Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently said no, ruling that a debtor whose home was owned by her single-member LLC could not take advantage of the homestead exemption. In re Breece, No. 12-8018, 2013 WL 197399 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013).
Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).
Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11’s fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.