The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio was recently presented with a strange set of facts regarding a purported licensee under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA). The issue was whether an acknowledged mistake by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – accompanied by a written USDA apology, no less – was sufficient to retroactively reinstate the licensee status of a produce producer.

On July 17, 2008, in Phar-Mor, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. (Nos 05-4525/4526), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Ohio's ruling that a vendor's administrative expense priority on its reclamation claim survives, even after the goods that are subject to reclamation are sold and the proceeds are used to satisfy a secured creditor's superior claim. Full text of the opinion.

Facts

The revisions to Ohio’s exemption law set forth in O.R.C. §2329.66 become effective on September 25, 2008 by Senate Bill 281 that was signed by Governor Strickland on June 27, 2008. The purpose of the changes to Ohio’s exemption law is to increase the exemptions for property that a debtor may hold exempt from execution, garnishment or sale for the satisfaction of a judgment. Ohio’s current exemptions have not been revised since 1979, and the current exemptions do not reflect the costs of living in 2008.

Legislation intended to address additional issues related Ohio’s asbestos litigation system was defeated by the Ohio House by a vote of 48-45. Senate Bill 370 House Bill 631 would have discourage “double dipping” by plaintiffs who file lawsuits in Ohio courts while making the same claims against bankruptcy trusts set up by federal bankruptcy courts.

Hudson, the Superintendent of the Ohio Department of Insurance, in her capacity as Rehabilitator of Colonial Insurance Company (“Colonial”), brought an application for an order, which was subsequently granted, terminating the rehabilitation proceeding of Colonial, authorizing the transfer of funds to the Ohio Department of Commerce, discharging and releasing the Rehabilitator, authorizing the final accounting, authorizing the closing of the estate and the dissolving of the corporate entity, approving the destruction of certain books and records, approving abandonment of physical assets, aut

Receiverships have gained in popularity in foreclosure cases and in other types of litigation in recent years. Orders appointing receivers and setting forth the receiver’s duties frequently include a provision allowing the receiver to market and sell real estate. However, the question of whether a receiver legally has the ability to convey title to real estate, free and clear of liens and encumbrances, appears to have been answered in the negative, at least by one appellate district in Ohio.

On Friday, AmTrust Bank, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, was closed by the OTS and the FDIC was named as receiver. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with New York Community Bank, headquartered in Westbury, New York, to assume the deposits of AmTrust Bank. AmTrust did not pay a premium to assume the deposits.

To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.

On December 19, 2014, the Governor of the State of Ohio signed into law legislation that clarifies and expands the scope of powers given to a receiver under Ohio’s receivership statutes (chapter 2735 of the Ohio Revised Code (“ORC”)).  Most significantly, effective March 23, 2015 (the effective date for all of the amendments), an Ohio receiver will have express statutory power to sell real and personal property free and clear of liens and will

Downtown Redevelopment Districts