A license agreement “deemed rejected by operation of law” could not be acquired under a court-approved asset purchase agreement, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Oct. 29, 2018. In re Provider Meds LLC, 2018 WL 5317445, *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018). Although the acquirer claimed “that it purchased a patent license from [the] debtors in bankruptcy sales of their estates,” the court explained that “a rejected executory contract … could not have been transferred by the bankruptcy sales in question … .” Id., at *1.

A bankruptcy trustee could not “avoid [a] debtor’s transfer” of encumbered asset sale proceeds when the debtor holds the funds “as a mere disbursing agent [under] a contract that” restricted its use, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 18, 2018. Keach v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. (In re Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9772 *14 (1st Cir. Apr. 18, 2018).

THE BANKING LAW JOURNAL

First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fraudulent Transfer and Fiduciary Duty Claims

Michael L. Cook* This article discusses a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision holding that the debt-financed purchase of a business was not a fraudulent transfer and did not violate the fiduciary duty of the company's directors.

“[T]he largely debt-financed purchase of a family-owned [business] was not a fraudulent [transfer] and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duty of the company’s directors,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Dec. 4, 2017. In re Irving Tanning Co., 2017 W.L. 5988834, *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 4, 2017).

Bankruptcy Code § 365(d)(3) requires the trustee or the debtor in possession to "timely perform all the obligations of the debtor . . .arising from and after the order for relief under any unexpired lease of nonresidential real property, until such lease is assumed or rejected, notwithstanding section 503(b)(1)." In 2001 the Third Circuit construed this section to require the debtor to perform the lease in accordance with its terms. CenterPoint Properties v. Montgomery Ward Holding Corp. (In re Montgomery Ward Holding Corp.), 268 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2001).

On February 7, 2011, in a highly anticipated decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that in Chapter 11 reorganizations, senior creditors may not “gift” recoveries to junior creditors and/or equity interest holders over the objection of an intervening class. In In re DBSD N.A., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 350480 (2d Cir. 2011), the majority ruled that such “gift plans” run afoul of the “absolute priority rule,” which is codified in Section 1129(b) of Bankruptcy Code. The decision has significant implications for future bankruptcy cases in New York.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a bankruptcy court’s ruling that, where subordination agreements lacked explicit provisions addressing the payment of post-petition interest on senior unsecured debt, the agreements were ambiguous, and an inquiry into the parties’ intent was required. After probing the facts and analyzing New York law, the bankruptcy court determined that the contracting parties did not intend to subordinate the junior unsecured debt to post-petition interest on the senior debt.

Background

On June 23rd, the First Circuit addressed the priority of claims asserted by senior noteholders and junior noteholders of debt issued by an insolvent bank. It affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that the parties did not intend for the senior noteholders to receive post-petition interest payments prior to the junior noteholders receiving a distribution. In re: Bank of New England Corporation, Debtor.  

On June 14th, the First Circuit modified the bankruptcy court's $250,000 sanction award against a mortgage servicer who erroneously claimed to be the mortgage holder. The mortgage servicer did not deliberately or intentionally seek to mislead the bankruptcy court and its actions were not prejudicial. First Circuit therefore modified the award to $5,000. In re Jacalyn S. Nosek.  

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background