The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit recently held that a creditor holding a perfected security interest in accounts and payment intangibles did not have a perfected security interest in the proceeds of an insurance settlement. In re Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Ry., Ltd., 521 B.R. 703 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2014). In this case, the creditor had extended a line of credit to the borrower, which it secured by a security interest in all the borrower’s accounts and payment intangibles. The creditor filed a financing statement to perfect its security interest.
In a 2014 decision rued by debt collectors everywhere, the Eleventh Circuit in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) ruled that filing a proof of claim to collect a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Not surprisingly, the Crawford decision spawned a tidal wave of copycat claims based on the simple act of filing a proof of claim on a stale debt.
The bankruptcy of fractional-share operator Avantair triggered a dispute regarding exactly what property its fractional-share owners held. Like other fractional-share operators, Avantair operated a fleet of airplanes, selling fractional shares in each of them to individual participants. Using Fractional Share Contracts consisting of interlocking purchase agreements, dry lease agreements, and fractional use agreements, Avantair controlled, operated, and maintained a fleet of aircraft owned by its participants.
Remember when I wrote a glowing column about a Master Development and Supply Agreement Apple and its lawyers drafted? It was one of the most-read posts I’ve written, so I bet a good number of you do. Since the post was so popular, and since there have been some, well, we’ll say “unanticipated consequences” for Apple, I thought it warranted some follow up.
This post comes to you based on a story by the always-excellent Matt Levine of BloombergView. Evidently Apple loaned a company called GT Advanced Technologies a bunch of money so GTAT could develop and supply Apple with sapphire screens for a long time. Anyway, there may have been a default under part of that agreement, and GTAT filed for bankruptcy protection because that default was going to ruin everything (at leas
In recent installments of the Manufacturer’s Corner, we have discussed how to protect yourself from insolvent customers and how your shipping terms can expose you to unexpected risk.
It’s unfortunate, but it happens: you reach a deal with your customer and prepare to perform your side of the agreement, only to discover that your buyer is insolvent or close to it. It is essential that you having a working knowledge your rights in this situation, because time is of the essence.
Earlier today, April 3, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice announced its largest ever environmental enforcement recovery case involving a $5.15 billion settlement, $4.4 billion of which will go to environmental cleanup and claims.
The case of Simon v. FIA Card, Services, N.A., recently decided by the Third Circuit, demonstrates the potential for conflicts between the Bankruptcy Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and emphasizes that banks should approach bankruptcy debtors with caution.
As Delaware has often been selected as a preferred place of incorporation by U.S. businesses, and consequently the venue for dissolution and bankruptcies, the recent decision by the Delaware Supreme Court, In the Matter of Krafft-Murphy Co., Inc., No. 85, 2013 (Del. Nov. 26, 2013), holding that insurance contracts remained property of the dissolved corporation may have significant implications for “orphan shares” at co-disposal, environmental remediation sites, as well as for non-environmental liabilities.