Perhaps Next Time the Debtor Will Speak Up a Little Sooner

A common query with D&O insurance coverage is whether post-insolvency claims against the insolvent company’s directors and officers trigger the Insured vs. Insured exclusion found in most D&O policies. This issue arises when claims are brought on behalf of the insolvent company against directors in an attempt to recover money for creditors.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. May 23, 2016)

The bankruptcy court sustains the creditor’s objection to the proposed Chapter 13 plan, finding the creditor’s expert more credible than the debtor’s expert as to valuation of the debtor’s mobile home. Thus, the the creditor’s secured claim was higher than the amount provided for in the plan. The court also holds that certain of the appliances in the home are not accessions and thus are not subject to the creditor’s lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Yesterday, Iron Bridge Tools, Inc., a full-service design, development, and distribution company serving the consumer and professional hand-tool market, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Fort Lauderdale (Case No. 16-17505-RBR).

On March 11, 2016, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a distressed company’s termination of a lease pursuant to an agreement with its landlord and the relinquishment of its leasehold interest to its landlord constituted “transfers” that may be avoidable as fraudulent transfers and preferences under the Bankruptcy Code.  The decision, Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. T.D. Invs. I, LLP (In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP, 816 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2016)), serves as a cautionary tale for landlords dealing with distressed tenants.

Background

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided the term “actual fraud” in Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A) encompasses forms of fraud, like fraudulent conveyance schemes, that can be effected without a false representation by a debtor. Importantly, the Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145, 2016 WL 2842452 (U.S. May 16, 2016) opinion clears up a split among the lower courts on the question of whether the phrase “actual fraud” requires a false representation to be made to a creditor.

When Can a Subsidiary Be Liable for the Actions of Its Owners?

In Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145 (U.S. May 16, 2016), a 7-1 majority of the Supreme Court held that a fraudulent conveyance scheme comported with the requirements of “actual fraud” to create a potential new debt dischargeability exception pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On Monday, May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 2842452 (2016) resolving a split between the Fifth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of the “actual fraud” exception to an individual debtor’s bankruptcy discharge. In relevant part, Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits debtors from discharging “any debt . . . for money, property, [or] services . . . to the extent obtained, by . . .

An individual files a bankruptcy case to have his debts forgiven, or “discharged.” Where that individual is a principal shareholder or officer of a corporate borrower who has guaranteed payment of his company’s loans, those debts can be substantial. An individual guarantor in that dire situation may try to hide assets – his own or those of his company – and then file a bankruptcy case, in an effort to defeat a lender’s right to be repaid.