A recent ruling in the Delphi Corporation, et al. ("Delphi") bankruptcy case calls into question the effectiveness of power of attorney provisions found in many claim purchase agreements. Specifically, on February 26, 2008, United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, presiding over the Delphi bankruptcy proceeding, held that claims purchasers could not submit cure notices in reliance on powers of attorney.

Delphi Sent Cure Notices Only to Contract Counterparties

In the last issue of Franchise Alert, we discussed how to spot signs of franchisee financial distress at an early stage. Here, we present some steps franchisors can take to deal with financially distressed franchisees.

Update Files

The question, “Can we get them to agree not to file bankruptcy in the future?” must be near the top of the list of questions clients most commonly ask their transactions and workout lawyers.

Most lawyers fielding this question are likely to explain that such an agreement is not enforceable under bankruptcy law. Good lawyers then suggest that in certain situations, an agreement for the entry of an order lifting the automatic bankruptcy stay, or an agreement not to oppose a lift-stay motion if the other side files a bankruptcy petition, may be enforceable.

Given the state of the economy, it will not be a rare occurrence in the short term for a supplier to receive a request to sell and deliver further goods to a purchaser who has filed proceedings under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code — and who is already indebted for unpaid pre-filing sales.

In Aalfs v. Wirum (In re Straightline Investments, Inc.),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether a post-petition factoring of accounts receivable by the debtor was an avoidable transfer under section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court, finding that the post-petition transfer had been properly avoided and that the lower court was justified in allowing the trustee both to recover the accounts receivable and their proceeds and to retain the consideration paid by the transferee.

On November 14, 2008, a letter was sent to derivatives counterparties of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Lehman”) notifying them of Lehman’s Motion to Settle or Assign Derivative Contracts. The letter concerns a motion filed in the bankruptcy court by Lehman Brothers Debtors on November 13, 2008, which seeks to establish two procedures relating to its pre-petition derivative contracts with counterparties.

Financial advisors, investment bankers, lawyers and other professionals in reorganization cases should pay close attention to a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down on Jan. 6, 2009. In re Smart World Technologies, LLC, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir. 1/6/2009).

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a nondebtor cannot effect a “triangular” setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, even if the parties had entered into pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff.1 In reaching its decision, the Court relied principally on the plain language of section 553(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which limits setoff to “mutual” obligations — i.e., direct obligations between a single obligor and obligee.

On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation (“GM”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York (the “Court”). Pursuant to numerous first day motions filed by GM, the Court has entered various orders relating to the administration of this bankruptcy proceeding. Of particular significance to GM’s suppliers are the following:

1. Deadlines Relating to the Assumption of Supplier Contracts.

A Florida bankruptcy court recently clarified what constitutes a contract to extend financial accommodations for the benefit of the debtor, and the circumstances in which those contracts could be assumed, rejected or terminated. In re Ernie Haire Ford, Inc., 403 B.R. 750 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009).