Attorneys who advise a distressed company usually work very closely with members of the board of directors. A recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas provides a cautionary reminder to such attorneys not to lose sight of the fact that, notwithstanding that the company acts through its board, the attorneys’ duties are to the company and not to the individual board members. And, losing focus on the source of the attorneys’ duties may result in exposure to significant liability.
The appointment of a receivership is an incredibly useful tool for lawyers. Since it is such a useful tool and due to a recent ruling in Texas, we thought now was as good as any to brush up on our familiarity with receiverships.
In a recent significant opinion, Judge Marvin Isgur of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that a springing lien to senior noteholders, conditioned on the amount of iHeart notes outstanding, was not triggered where an iHeart subsidiary repurchased notes and left them outstanding past maturity.1 The Court rejected various creditor arguments that the notes were canceled as a matter of law, or that actions to avoid the springing lien entitled creditors to equitable remedies.
Fraudulent transfer law allows creditors and bankruptcy trustees, under certain circumstances, to sue transferees to recover funds received where a debtor’s transfers to the transferees actually or constructively defrauded its creditors. Under both the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act adopted by most states and the fraudulent transfer action created by federal bankruptcy law, a transferee of an alleged fraudulent transfer may assert a defense from such liability by establishing that it received the transfer in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value. See 11 U.S.C.
“A … transferee [who] received fraudulent transfers with actual knowledge or inquiry notice of fraud or insolvency” loses any “good faith” defense available under the Texas version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Jan. 9, 2019. Janvey v. GMAG LLC, 2019 WL 141107, *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019) (emphasis added).
On December 5, 2018, Senior Care Centers, LLC and 120 subsidiaries (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed for chapter 11 relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Debtors are one of the largest providers of skilled nursing services in the country, providing care on a daily basis to approximately 9,000 patients. The Debtors’ facilities include nursing, living and hospice facilities, which are located throughout Texas and Louisiana.
“… Ponzi scheme payments to satisfy legitimate antecedent debts to defendant banks could not be avoided” by a bankruptcy trustee “absent transaction-specific proof of actual intent to defraud or the statutory elements of constructive fraud – transfer by an insolvent debtor who did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Nov. 20, 2018. Stoebner v. Opportunity Finance LLC, 2018 WL 6055636 at *4 (8th Cir. Nov. 20, 2018), citing Finn v. Alliance Bank, 860 N.W. 2d 638, 653-56 (Minn. 2015).
In Lone Star State Bank of West Texas v. Waggoner, et al. (In re Waggoner Cattle, LLC), Adv. P. No. 18-02003 (RLJ) (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2018), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas reminded us that creditor’s claims against third parties can confer jurisdiction on a bankruptcy court when the claims could have a conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.
The Bottom Line
The Fifth Circuit recently held in RPD Holdings, L.L.C. v. Tech Pharmacy Services (In re Provider Meds, L.L.C.), No. 17-1113 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018), that a patent license that was not specifically listed on the debtors’ bankruptcy schedules was automatically deemed rejected where it was not assumed within 60 days of the cases’ conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7.
What Happened?
As the brick and mortar retail industry continues to decline, landlords are likely to engage in an increasing number of lease disputes with delinquent tenants. As we have seen over the past five years, those disputes often end up in bankruptcy court and may drag on for months before a landlord is able to shake its non-performing tenant. But what if the landlord terminated the lease before the tenant filed for bankruptcy relief? Can the tenant revive and assume the lease? In some instances, yes.