While there has been much fuss over the recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation1 due to its potential ramifications for director liability, as we explored in Part I of our series on this case here, court watchers have paid less attention to the court’s treatment of officer liability and the interes
The city impounded the debtor’s vehicle for nonpayment of traffic fines. The debtor filed a chapter 13 petition and demanded turnover of the car. Section 362(a)(3) stays any act to “exercise control over property of the estate.” Section 542(a) requires one in possession of property of the estate to deliver it to the trustee. The most natural reading of section 362(a)(3) is that it prohibits affirmative acts that alter the status quo and does not impose an affirmative obligation on a party holding property of the estate to turn it over. Section 542(a) performs that function.
On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2021 (the “CAA”) was enacted to provide additional coronavirus stimulus and relief for businesses challenged by the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. In doing so, the CAA includes several targeted, but temporary, changes to the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) designed to provide certain debtors with greater flexibility with respect to their leases (which may negatively affect landlords) while ensuring that creditors are not penalized under the preference law for renegotiating their lease terms (which should benefit landlords).
The Supreme Court has lowered (but not eliminated) the risk that a creditor violates the automatic stay by retaining a debtor’s property post-petition. On January 14, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 (Justice Barrett abstaining) that the “mere retention” of a debtor’s property does not violate section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106 (Jan. 14, 2021).
The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied "Colorado law to resolve" the question of "who owns the federal tax refund." Id., at 2.
It was only a matter of time. On January 12, 2021, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had reached its first civil settlement regarding allegations of fraud related to the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).1 DOJ settled a $4.2 million claim against a bankrupt internet retailer and its president for $100,000. Although unique to the case’s specific allegations, the settlement reveals activities that may be alleged as PPP fraud, statutes at DOJ’s disposal to pursue civil enforcement, and terms by which DOJ will resolve PPP fraud allegations.
A recent bankruptcy case now on appeal is being closely watched for the significant economic repercussions it could have on debtors and creditors alike. On October 26, 2020, in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the debtor must pay (1) the make-whole premium owed under its debt documents and (2) post-petition interest at the contractual default rate.
On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 became law. In addition to funding the government and providing coronavirus relief, the Act contains several intriguing amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. The changes discussed below are intended to make restructuring under subchapter V of chapter 11 more attractive for small businesses.
Rent Abatement for Small Business Tenants
On January 14, 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously held in City of Chicago v. Fulton that a creditor’s passive retention of a debtor’s property does not violate section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court’s 8-0 decision (Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case) may have the unintended effect of increasing bankruptcy costs and making it more difficult for individual debtors to achieve a “fresh start”.
On January 12, 2021, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) settled its first civil action for alleged fraud against the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) – the primary lending program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act for small businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.