Introduction
Since the financial crisis, sales under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code have provided an increasingly popular way for secured creditors of distressed businesses to recover their loans. However, despite the advantages of Section 363 sales, the significant expense and time required to conduct a Bankruptcy sale has caused secured creditors to pursue less comprehensive solutions. One alternative for recouping value from a troubled loan is an Article 9 foreclosure sale under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Tenth Circuit holds that Canadian nationals who conspire to commit a breach of fiduciary duty against a Delaware corporation operating exclusively in Oklahoma are subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma despite their lack of physical contact with the state. Canadian law firm alleged to have assisted the conspirators is not, however, subject to personal jurisdiction.
In a decision that comes as welcome news to some employers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer that incurred withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension plan had not become a plan fiduciary by failing to pay the withdrawal liability, and could discharge that liability in bankruptcy.
When businesses pay for goods and services, they generally like to receive them. Unfortunately, as any bankruptcy lawyer will tell you, this consistent desire is not matched by uniform experience.
One of the ironic issues for failing banks has been the fact that banks that they have had to continue to deal with their borrowers and depositors in the ordinary course of business even though they are already in the queue for resolution by the FDIC. So for example, loans continue to get renewed and documents executed. What happens if you renew a loan shortly before the bank fails, do you have some sort of defense to enforcement of the loan when the successor bank or the FDIC makes demand on you?
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., has arguably made it harder for damaged beneficiaries to prevent a negligent or self-interested trustee from filing a bankruptcy case and escaping debts owed to the trust’s beneficiaries. Individual debtors file bankruptcy cases to obtain a discharge of their debts.
In a recent unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court made it more difficult to avoid a bankruptcy debtor discharging a debt tied to "defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity." [1] In Bullock, the Court stated that a defalcation, or misappropriation of funds, requires a
“Do not pass Go, do not collect $200” is a phrase we all remember from the childhood game Monopoly. Like Monopoly, state franchise sales laws have rules and regulations that must be followed. A franchisor’s failure to follow these basic procedural rules for selling franchises can result in self-destruction.
Fiduciaries who breach their duties may pay the consequences far longer than they may think, for they may not even be able to escape liability through personal bankruptcy. In Raso v. Fahey (In re Fahey), No. 11-1118 (June 11, 2013), the U.S Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts became the first court to apply the new defalcation guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Bullock v. BankChampaign, NA, 133 S. Ct.