What does this mean for you? Should you stop providing goods and services? Should you call and ask for the money?
If the customer owes you a substantial amount for your services and has told you that they have no assets, what do you do?
InBailey Tool & Mfg. Co. v. Republic Bus. Credit, LLC, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 3502 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas clarified how aggressive a secured lender can be when enforcing its rights. The 145-page opinion details how a lending arrangement went “terribly wrong” and why awarding millions in damages was warranted.
Background
Much discussion has been had recently about the fact that cryptocurrencies (tokens and coins) do not fit neatly into a generally accepted financial asset classification. The value of most cryptocurrencies is not pegged to any tangible commodity or fiat currency.
“2 There is one inconsequential difference — § 1228(a) refers to debt ‘of a kind specified,’ while § 1192(2) refers to debt ‘of the kind specified.’” [Fn. 1]
This “inconsequential difference” quotation, from footnote 2 in the Fourth Circuit’s Cantwell v. Clearyopinion, is on the application of § 523 discharge exceptions to corporations and LLCs. The “inconsequential difference” quote, is both:
On July 11, 2022, genomic sequencing company GenapSys Inc. of Redwood City, CA filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 22-10621). The company reports $10 million to $50 million in both assets and liabilities.
With priming transactions experiencing a resurgence over the past few years, there have been a number of different routes taken by lenders with one goal in mind - Assemble a majority position and exchange, refinance or otherwise abandon their existing positions to move up the capital structure, which in turn helps increase their blended return on their exposure to a borrower and prevents a different configuration of investors from grabbing the “high ground” above them.
In bankruptcy parlance, the lookback period does not look good for the crypto industry. In the last 90 days, the cryptocurrency markets have suffered huge losses, and in the last 14 days, two major players have sought bankruptcy protection. During the prior 365 days, nearly three trillion dollars of value has been stripped from the digital wallets of cryptocurrency investors, and the industry has been forced to eliminate thousands of jobs.
On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.
The Bankruptcy Protector
In Enter. Bank v. The Ingros Fam. LLC, et al., 2022 WL 2283392 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. June 23, 2022), a lender faced a potentially costly decision when it mistakenly left the word “The” from a borrower’s name.
Bankruptcy – and the restructuring process – are challenging and complex endeavors, requiring a variety of tactics and resolution mechanisms. For the parties involved, financial expectations can be at odds with the reality of the situation, and knowing when to compromise and how best to proceed for your organization’s specific needs is essential.