“The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword…And Verbal Communications During Company-Wide Employee Meetings.”
In a recent decision that has captured the attention of the U.S. secondary loan market, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington starkly concluded that hedge funds “that acquire distressed debt and engage in predatory lending” were not eligible buyers of a loan under a loan agreement because they were not “financial institutions” within the Court’s understanding of the phrase.
When Reston-based Simplexity, LLC (known more commonly as Wirefly.com and its related sites) recently filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy it had, sadly, already terminated nearly its entire workforce. According to pleadings filed in the case, Simplexity had hoped to market and sell its assets outside of bankruptcy in order to maximize creditor recovery and preserve the jobs of its employees. Instead, its liquidity reached such a critical level that it was forced to cease operations on March 12 and file for bankruptcy protection on March 16, 2014. Just one day later, on M
A recent appellate decision in the Western District of Washington prohibited hedge fund creditors from voting on a debtor’s chapter 11 plan on the basis that the funds did not qualify as “financial institutions” for purposes of the definition of “Eligible Assignee” under the applicable loan agreement.1 While this counter-intuitive result seems driven by the specific facts of that case, this decision serves as a useful reminder of the importance of carefully reviewing assignment restrictions when purchasing loans in the secondary market.
A federal district court has ruled that a distressed debt fund is not a “financial institution” for purposes of the assignment provisions of a loan agreement.
Background
The Bottom Line:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the “Seventh Circuit”) recently adopted a broad reading of the safe harbor of United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) § 546(e), which protects from avoidance “settlement payments” and transfers made in connection with a “securities contract,” among other transfers.1 In FCStone, the Seventh Circuit reversed the United States District Court for t
Hopes that certain severance payments paid by companies to terminated employees could escape application of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax were dashed when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 25th that such payments, when not tied to state unemployment benefits, were “wages,” and thus taxable. The ruling for the government will allow the IRS to disallow protective refund claims that numerous companies filed after a federal circuit court held that termination payments were not subject to FICA tax.
Assignees of Loan Only Entitled to One Collective Vote on Plan
Purcell brought a lawsuit seeking to recover $85,000 he had lent to Schweitzer. The parties settled, agreeing that Schweitzer would pay the sum of $38,000, along with interest at the rate of 8.5 percent, in installments over 24 months to Purcell. The agreement provided that if Schweitzer failed to pay on time, it would be a breach of the entire agreement and the original liability of $85,000 would be due. The agreement also contained the following language:
The liquidated damages provision does not constitute an unlawful "penalty" or "forfeiture."