In re TOUSA, Inc., Nos. 10-60017-CIV/Gold, 10- 61478, 10-62032, 10-62035, and 10-62037 Slip Op. (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
On February 11, 2011, the Hon Alan Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a 113 page opinion and order quashing the bankruptcy court's order requiring the lenders involved in TOUSA, Inc.'s Transeastern joint venture to disgorge, as fraudulent transfers under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, settlement monies that they had received on July 31, 2007 in repayment of their existing debt and to pay prejudgment interest on such monies, for a total disgorgement in excess of $480 million.
Although it has been described as an “extraordinary remedy,” the ability of a bankruptcy court to order the substantive consolidation of related debtor-entities in bankruptcy (if circumstances so dictate) is relatively uncontroversial, as an appropriate exercise of a bankruptcy court’s broad (albeit nonstatutory) equitable powers. By contrast, considerable controversy surrounds the far less common practice of ordering consolidation of a debtor in bankruptcy with a nondebtor.
Delaware has long been the bellwether for law concerning the duties that corporate officers and directors owe to a company and its creditors, and Florida courts often look to Delaware cases and compelling authority in evaluating disputes alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by directors or officers. A recent significant Delaware opinion has helped clarify what duties officers and directors owe to whom and when. In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, 2015 WL 2062115 *1 (Del. Ch.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently held that a wholly unsecured second mortgage lien may be “stripped off,” even if the property encumbered by the lien is no longer part of the bankruptcy estate due to abandonment by the bankruptcy trustee.
The Bankruptcy Court did not specifically reference the consolidated cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bank of Amer. v. Toledo-Cardona, and Bank of Amer. v. Caulkett, which should resolve the issue of whether a wholly unsecured lien may be stripped off in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
People often enter into agreements through which a person or entity borrows money in exchange for a security interest on property that he or it owns. However, in drafting an agreement which establishes a security interest, it is important to make sure that the document is legally enforceable. The bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment in Theresa Bender v. Christopher James, Case No. 14-01001-KKS, ECF No. 50 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2015) demonstrates the importance of making sure that such an agreement contains an adequate description of the collateral.
A commercial landlord’s failure to terminate properly a commercial lease can lead to long drawn-out legal battles between the commercial landlord and tenant, before and after the tenant files for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. In particular, a commercial landlord’s failure to elect and effectively pursue its remedy of lease termination may preclude any subsequent action in bankruptcy to gain possession of the premises even after a writ of possession has issued.
More is more, right? Not according to the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Florida. The court recently ruled that when a creditor tries to capture the maximum amount of collateral in its security interest, this could have the opposite effect and result in an entirely unsecured claim. As most creditors know, the treatment of a claim in bankruptcy is governed not only by the Bankruptcy Code, but also by state law.
Below is an excerpt:
Long-term care providers may have a new avenue to stave off financial collapse when faced with a proposed termination by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — protection and reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
That strategy will likely prove to be a tough row to hoe if pursued in federal court here, though.