Is your guaranty restricted or continuing? A continuing guaranty gives rise to divisible individual transactions, while a restricted guaranty—one that concerns a contemplated and specified extension of credit—arises upon execution of the guaranty. In bankruptcy, as in life, timing is everything. A debtor’s liability under a prepetition guaranty agreement for a post-petition advance of credit may depend on the distinction between restricted and continuing, and the distinction may be subtle.

This post reviews some concepts concerning executory contracts. The ground covered will be familiar to insolvency experts and should be insightful for readers who don’t specialize in U.S. bankruptcy law.

Schedule of claims – What is it all about? Once bankruptcy proceedings have been opened over a debtor, the bankruptcy administration must prepare an inventory to determine the extent of the bankruptcy estate. By means of public notice, the creditors and debtors of the bankrupt are requested to come forward (so-called call for claims). Within one month, the creditors must file their claims or other demands against the bankrupt with the bankruptcy administration. Subsequently, the bankruptcy administration draws up a list of claims.

In JPMCC 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging, LLC v. Transwest Resort Props. Inc., et al. (In re Transwest Resort Props. Inc.), Case No. 16-16221, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1947 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018), the Ninth Circuit was the first Circuit court to decide a significant split in the lower courts between the “per plan” or “per debtor” impaired accepting class requirement to confirmation.

The Bankruptcy Code provides bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditor committees with “avoidance powers” that allow them to set aside and recover certain transfers that a debtor made before filing for bankruptcy.[1]  These avoidance powers are, however, limited by a number of exceptions enumerated in the Bankruptcy Code, including the securities safe harbor at § 546(e).  Section 546(e) protects from avoidance any transfer “made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . .

On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in U.S. Bank National Ass’n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Management LLC v.

Farmers attempting to reorganize under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code may propose selling land as a means of generating cash to pay creditors. This sale creates a large capital gains tax, as the cost basis for the land is likely low. That capital gains tax has priority over general unsecured creditors, and the farmer needs to pay that capital gains tax in full to get a Chapter 12 plan confirmed.

In U.S. Capital Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, No. 15-1509 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an appellate court should apply a deferential standard of review to a bankruptcy court's decision as to whether a creditor is a "nonstatutory" insider. Nonstatutory insiders are creditors who are not specifically designated as insiders under the Bankruptcy Code (such as officers, directors, and controlling shareholders), but who the bankruptcy court determines nonetheless have sufficient influence over a debtor to be deemed insiders.

Safe Harbor Protection Generally

In general, a trustee or debtor-in-possession in a bankruptcy has the power to avoid certain prepetition transfers made by a Debtor. The most common of these are fraudulent transfers and preference payments. But this avoiding power is not unlimited. It is subject to a number of codified exceptions and defenses. And one such exception that has been used to shield an increasing number of transactions is the securities “safe harbor” provision found in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Zohar III, Corp., along with five of its subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10512).