Lenders and secured creditors often require that debtor-customers direct all receivable collections into a lockbox, hoping to wrangle any available proceeds to apply to their debtors’ outstanding debt. In requiring a debtor or its customer to remit payments to a lockbox, however, creditors may be overlooking a potential source of significant liability. A creditor using a lockbox may unwittingly expose itself to greater risk and liability than just a debtor’s default if it receives funds that were collected as sales tax on a debtor’s goods or services.

On March 30, 2021, Houston-based retail power provider Entrust Energy, Inc., filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 21-31070). The company reports $100 to $500 million in assets and $50 to $100 million in liabilities.

David’s Bridal, Inc., along with three affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12635).

Oklahoma ProCure Management, LLC (dba ProCure Proton Therapy Center) has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-12622).

Mattress Firm, Inc., along with forty (40) affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12241). Mattress Firm’s petition estimates its assets and liabilities to both be between $1–$10 billion.

Delaware’s Bankruptcy Court has recently issued two insightful opinions that impact a creditor’s ability to establish the “receipt” element of a valuable 503(b)(9) administrative expense priority claim.

NNN 400 Capitol Center, LLC, a single asset real estate debtor, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. According to the Petition, the Debtor estimates its assets and liabilities to both be between $10MM – $50MM.

On March 23, 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”) issued an opinion in the chapter 15 case of Banco Cruzeiro do Sul, S.A., a Brazilian bank (“BCSUL” or the “Debtor”), holding, among other things, that section 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent foreign representatives from commencing state law fraudulent conveyance actions. See Laspro Consultores LTDA v. Alinia Corp. (In re Massa Falida Do Banco Cruzeiro Do Sul S.A.), No. 14-22974-BKC-LMI, Adv. Pro. No. 16-01315-LMI, 2017 WL 1102814 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.

Reconsidering the Lasmos approach to winding-up petitions involving arbitration clauses.

Bankruptcy Code protects certain Ponzi scheme payments. The trustee for debtor Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BLMIS) sued to avoid fictitious profits paid by BLMIS to hundreds of customers over the life of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The defendant customers moved to dismiss certain of these avoidance claims pursuant to 11 USC Sec. 546(e), which shields from recovery securities-related payments made by a stockbroker. The trial court agreed that Sec. 546(e) barred the claims, dismissing them, and the Second Circuit affirmed.