On October 27, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that even inadvertent mistakes in UCC filings count, and the burden rests on the filing party to detect errors, and not on affected parties who come across them in a search. This ruling upsets a 2013 decision of a bankruptcy court and will ultimately determine the character of a $1.5 billion security interest in the General Motors (GM) bankruptcy.
Background
In Czyzewski v. Sun Capital Partners, Inc.1, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed a Bankruptcy Court determination that a private equity firm was not liable for its subsidiary portfolio company’s failure to provide adequate notice of a plant closing under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).
On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, the subjective intent of a secured party is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of a UCC-3 termination statement if the secured party authorized its filing.[1]
Background
Recently, in the case of In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, Bankruptcy No. 14-12103 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014), 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 4439 (Bankr. D. Del. October 20, 2014), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware addressed the issue of whether a debtor has the authority to reject an expired collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code.
On Oct. 27, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that even inadvertent mistakes in UCC filings count – the burden rests on the filing party to detect errors, and not on affected parties who come across them in a search. This ruling upsets the 2013 decision of the bankruptcy court and will ultimately determine the character of a $1.5 billion security interest in the General Motors (GM) bankruptcy.
Background
On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an opinion holding that a UCC-3 termination statement that is authorized by the secured party is effective to terminate the original UCC filing even though the secured party did not actually intend to extinguish the underlying security interest.1 Because the court determined that the relevant section of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) is unambiguous and
United States Bankruptcy Courts, particularly in New York and Delaware, are already a destination for multinational corporate bankruptcy filings, but a recent study co-authored by Stephen J. Lubben, a Seton Hall Law School professor and frequent contributor to The New York Times’ DealBook blog, suggests that the current volume of foreign debtors filing in the U.S.
Are a debtor’s net operating losses considered property of the estate when they are reported on a consolidated tax return by a non-debtor parent? We previously wrote about this issue here.
In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 193 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that when creditors of insolvent firms assert derivative claims, they need not meet the contemporaneous ownership requirement applied to stockholder-plaintiffs.
Directors of an insolvent corporation face a host of difficult questions. Should they wind up operations or file for bankruptcy to preserve assets for creditors, or chart a riskier course that could lead the company back to profitability and possibly create value for shareholders? If they choose the riskier course and it fails, will the directors be potentially liable to creditors? The opinion issued by Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery earlier this month in Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, slip op., 2014 Del. Ch.