A corporation’s asset sale “was structured [by its insiders] so as to fraudulently transfer assets in order to avoid paying [a major creditor] what it was owed,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 22, 2016. Continental Casualty Co. v. Symons, 2016 WL 1118566, at *6 (7th Cir., March 22, 2016).

It always starts so easy. Borrower comes in and wants to borrow money. Lenders want some form of collateral to secure (potentially) a loan and the Borrower happily agrees to provide, or pledge, collateral to secure a loan. Common examples are the Borrower pledging inventory, equipment or receivables (assuming of course there is no real estate to lien with a mortgage). Lender, either internally, or with outside counsel, prepares the necessary security agreement to document the pledge of collateral. This is generally the description of a secured transaction.

Depending on the nature of its business, a debtor may encounter issues associated with the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), a statue designed to protect sellers of perishable produce. Recently, in Kingdom Fresh Produce, Inc. v.

A.BACKGROUND

The term “bad boy” guaranty is used in certain circumstances to describe a guaranty to be provided – usually by an individual, not an entity – in connection with, most often, real estate financing.

The original intent of “bad boy” guarantys was to influence the post-closing behavior of a principal of the borrower, in order to discourage bad conduct that would harm the lender’s position and collateral. Traditionally, the triggers for recourse to the borrower and/or guarantor liability were events such as:

1 PGDOCS\6505199.2 2015 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments Michael P. Carey Bryan Cave LLP Fourteenth Floor 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 572-6600 March 22, 2016 This paper is not intended as legal advice for any specific person or circumstance, but rather a general treatment of the topics discussed. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author only and not Bryan Cave LLP. The author would like to thank Tom Richey for his continued support, advice and assistance with this paper.

In MERV Properties, L.L.C. v. Forcht Bancorp., Inc. 2015 WL 5827775, 61 BCD 170 (Bankr. 6th Cir. 2015), the 6th U.S. Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed summary judgment entered by the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in favor of defendant bank on plaintiff borrower’s fraud and collusion claims.

On remand by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Federal District Court of Massachusetts found Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Sun Fund III”) and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP (“Sun Fund IV, and together with Sun Fund III, the “Sun Funds”) liable for the withdrawal liability of Scott Brass, Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that constructive fraudulent conveyance claims arising under state law are preempted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Code), where the transfers were made by or to financial intermediaries effectuating settlement payments in securities transactions or made in connection with a securities contract, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is a debtor in possession, bankruptcy trustee or other creditors’ representative.

Creditors of a Chapter 11 debtor asserting “state law, constructive fraudulent [transfer] claims … are preempted by Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e),” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 29, 2016. In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, 2016 WL ____, at *1 (2d Cir. March 29, 2016), as corrected.

Two recent court decisions may affect an equity sponsor’s options when deciding whether and how to put money into - or take money out of - a portfolio company. The first may expand the scope of “inequitable conduct” that, in certain Chapter 11 settings, could lead a court to equitably subordinate a loan made by a sponsor to its portfolio company, placing the loan behind all of the company’s other debt in the payment queue. The second decision muddies the waters of precedent under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on the issue of the avoidability of non-U.S.