A foreign company makes a foreign distribution to foreign shareholders shortly before merging with a U.S. company in a highly-leveraged LBO. The resulting company files a chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York 13 months later. Can the foreign transfer be avoided as a fraudulent conveyance under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code? Previously, the answer was almost certainly not (at least in the Southern District of New York).
Immediately upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case an automatic stay prohibits actions against the debtor to, among other things, collect pre-petition obligations and to obtain control over property of the bankruptcy estate. The automatic stay furthers fundamental policy goals of providing a debtor with the “breathing space” to reorganize or otherwise address its problems, and providing an orderly process for dealing with creditor claims. A violation of the stay can be costly, resulting in an award of actual and possibly punitive damages. Two recent rulings of th
Baker Botts L.L.P. has filed its application for retention as debtors’ counsel in In re New Gulf Resources, LLC, et al. (Case No. 15-12556, Bankr. D. Del.), and the application incudes a novel “Fee Premium.” Essentially, Baker Botts’ aggregate fees incurred in the case will be increased by 10% (subject to court approval) but … Baker Botts will waive the entire Fee Premium “if, and only if, Baker Botts does not incur material fees and expenses defending against any objection with respect to an interim or final fee application.”
Two recent court decisions may result in a broadening of the range of options available to an equity sponsor in respect of an insolvent portfolio company. The first decision may provide increased flexibility in structuring asset sales in certain chapter 11 settings, by utilizing escrows and other techniques to potentially avoid the need to apply asset-sale proceeds strictly in accordance with creditor priorities under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida recently overruled a debtor's objection to a mortgagee's secured claim and denied the debtor's motion to determine secured status, holding that the issues should have been brought by adversary proceeding, and in any event neither Florida's statute of limitations nor its statute of repose barred enforcement of the note and mortgage. A copy of the opinion is attached.
When can a bank be at risk of unknowingly receiving a fraudulent transfer? How much information does a bank need to have before it is on “inquiry notice”? A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the risks that a bank takes when it ignores red flags and fails to investigate.
In re Sentinel Management Group – The Decision
Shore Chan Depumpo LLP v. Thrasher
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-14-0697-CV (January 13, 2016)
Justices Fillmore, Stoddart (Opinion), and O’Neill
“‘Two roads diverged in the woods and I took the road less traveled’ [sic] … and it hurt, man! Not cool, Robert Frost! … But what if there really were two paths? I want to be on the one that leads to awesome.”
– Kid President (Robby Novak)
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code trusts a debtor in possession to operate its business. In general, a debtor in possession “is free to use, sell[,] or lease property of the . . . estate in the operation of the debtor’s business.”1 This discretion is “at the heart” of the powers of a debtor in possession, 2 and courts are reluctant “to interfere, or to permit other parties in interest to interfere, in the making of routine, day-to-day business decisions.” 3 Therefore, a court will not disturb