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.
A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York1 found that a UCC-3 termination statement filed on behalf of a secured creditor was not effective because it lacked the proper authorization.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Eighth Circuit held on March 25, 2013, that a lender “lost its possessory lien when it turned the Debtor’s account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection.” In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., _____ B.R. 2013 _____, 2013WL 1188041, *5 (8th Cir. B.A.P. March 25, 2013) (emphasis added).
Recently, the Fifth Circuit decided a case regarding the appropriate interest rate to be charged when a secured creditor's claim is "crammed down," pursuant to section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Code), 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532. Unfortunately, the decision does little to clarify the confusion precipitated by the Supreme Court's 2004 decision of Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), and perhaps even adds to it.
Grab your matzoh or Scotch cream eggs or whatever your favorite snack is this time of year and settle in for this week’s Inbox on Suits by Suits:
In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Western Real Estate Equities, LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., No. 12-10271 (5th Cir. 2013), the court held that the acceptance vote from a minimally and “artificially impaired” class of claims meets the 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10) requirement for the confirmation of a non-consensual “cramdown” chapter 11 plan.
The homestead exemption is important to the many debtors in bankruptcy who own their own homes. But what if the debtor owns the home through his or her single-member LLC? Is that good enough? A Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently said no, ruling that a debtor whose home was owned by her single-member LLC could not take advantage of the homestead exemption. In re Breece, No. 12-8018, 2013 WL 197399 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013).