Sleep better at night knowing that the loan you made to your borrower is supported by collateral from the borrower’s subsidiaries? You may want to keep one eye open. On May 15, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a bankruptcy court opinion that reinforces lender liability for fraudulent transfers in subsidiary-supported loans. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida in In re TOUSA, Inc., and overruled a contrary opinion by the U.S. District Court.
On May 15, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed two key rulings made by a Florida Bankruptcy Court in the long-running bankruptcy case of TOUSA, Inc., once one of the largest homebuilders in the country. The Bankruptcy Court had avoided—as fraudulent transfers—the liens granted by TOUSA’s subsidiaries (the Subsidiaries) to new lenders (the New Lenders) that provided $500 million in financing for TOUSA to payoff debt that was owed by TOUSA, but not the Subsidiaries, to then existing lenders (the Old Lenders).
On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) issued an opinion in In re TOUSA, Inc.,1 in which it affirmed the original decision of the bankruptcy court and reversed the appellate decision of the district court. After a 13-day trial, the bankruptcy court had found that liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the “Conveying Subsidiaries”) to secure new loans (the “New Term Loans”) incurred to pay off preexisting indebtedness to certain lenders (the “Transeastern Lenders”) were avoidable fraudulent transfers.
On May 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an important opinion1 in the ongoing fraudulent conveyance litigation brought by the unsecured creditors’ committee in the bankruptcy of homebuilder TOUSA, Inc. (“TOUSA”).
In a decision with significant implications for borrowers and lenders, on May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a bankruptcy court's findings that upstream guarantees and associated liens delivered by a bankrupt debtor's subsidiaries were avoidable as fraudulent transfers.
On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.
In a very recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,In re J.H. Investment Services, Inc., the court held that a creditor must take an affirmative step to pursue an unsecured claim, and that section 506(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code does not automatically provide for a deficiency claim.
On November 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion that piqued the interest of bankruptcy practitioners nationwide and sent secured creditors scrambling to ensure that their rights to a deficiency claim had been properly preserved in pending bankruptcy cases. The Eleventh Circuit held that the IRS had waived its right to an unsecured deficiency by filing a proof of claim that evidenced a secured claim but failed to note that a portion of the claim may be unsecured.
When dealing with a debtor in Chapter 11, vendors typically seek to protect against loss by insisting upon payment in advance or on very short terms. However, the monies paid to a vendor following the filing of bankruptcy often constitute the cash collateral of a secured creditor. It is critical that a vendor determine whether the debtor has authorization to use cash collateral.
Employers are constrained by dozens of rules and regulations limiting their hiring criteria. In today’s economy, one question that often arises is whether employers may refuse to hire bankrupt job applicants. Surprisingly, the answer for private employers may be yes.