The Seventh Circuit recently held that a purchaser in an “asset deal” of a business in receivership was found to be a successor employer for the purposes of a $500,000 wage/hour settlement. The liability was imposed on the purchaser even though the contract formalizing the asset deal expressly excluded that liability. Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions, LLC. Found here.
In a short opinion for what it considered an “easy case,” the Supreme Court decided 8-01 in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank2 on May 29, 2012 that if a plan of reorganization proposes a sale of property, secured lenders with liens on that property must be allowed to credit bid, i.e., “pay” using the amount of their allowed secured claim. This is a definite victory for secured lenders who, generally, will now not have to advance additional capital in order to protect their collateral.
The Supreme Court may revisit two of the many questions left open by its much-discussed decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), an opinion famous not only for its subject – the estate of the late actress and model Anna Nicole Smith – but also for redefining the allocation of judicial authority between an Article III federal district court and a bankruptcy court. Appellants have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v.
Congress enacted the ordinary course of business defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to protect recurring, customary transactions in order to encourage the continuation of business with and the extension of credit to a financially distressed customer.
Firms offering comprehensive financial services scored a significant victory on April 9, 2013, when Judge Robert Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Capmark Financial Group Inc.’s (“Capmark”) insider preference action against four lender affiliates of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”), which arose out of Capmark’s 2009 bankruptcy.1 Davis Polk represented the Goldman Sachs lender affiliates and advanced the arguments adopted by Judge Sweet.
Owners of Chapter 11 bankruptcy debtors have long devised schemes to try to hold on to their ownership interests while stiffing the debtors’ creditors. In the past, owners attempted to do this by proposing reorganization plans that paid creditors only a portion of what they are owed while selling all of the equity in the reorganized debtor to the owner for a nominal new investment.
An issue that is often overlooked, but should be considered in the context of large project transactions, is the potential insolvency of contractors and subcontractors. A bankruptcy proceeding involving a key contractor can cause headaches and costly delays, particularly if title to goods or work completed has not been transferred to a project owner. Accordingly, anticipating these types of issues and accounting for them in negotiating construction and supply contracts is an important step in any large project transaction.
In Part 1 of this commercial landlord's guide (published in the March 20 - April 2 issue of the CREJ), I addressed some of the issues faced by a landlord when a commercial tenant files bankruptcy.
The March 2013 Commercial Financial Services Brief included a cautionary tale about a secured party’s inadvertent loss of its security interest in its borrower’s bankruptcy case as a result of the secured party having mistakenly filed a UCC termination statement. This article describes another situation in which a secured party experienced a similar haunting outcome.
On April 1, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the City of Stockton qualified to file for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court’s decision on this issue serves as an important milestone for chapter 9 jurisprudence, clarifying the requirements for “good faith” negotiations and being “insolvent” as conditions to filing for chapter 9 protection. Significantly, the court held that a municipal debtor need not negotiate with all of its creditors, only those that it intends to impair.