IN RE: USA BABY, INC. (March 28, 2012)

Scott Wallis owned 5% of USA Baby, Inc., a children's furniture franchisor. After its creditors forced it into reorganization, the bankruptcy trustee moved to convert the case to a liquidation. The bankruptcy judge agreed. Wallis moved twice for reconsideration. He alleged first that the trustee and franchisees committed fraud. He later argued that reorganization was possible if the franchisees paid fees that were due. The court denied his requests. Judge Lefkow (N.D. Ill.) affirmed. Wallis appeals.

In October 2009, the court overseeing the TOUSA, Inc. bankruptcy cases in the Southern District of Florida (Bankruptcy Court) set off considerable alarm bells throughout the lending community when it unraveled a refinancing transaction as a fraudulent conveyance based upon, in primary part, the fact that certain subsidiaries of TOUSA, Inc. pledged their assets as collateral for a new loan that was used to repay prior debt on which the subsidiaries were not liable, and that was not secured by those subsidiaries’ assets.

On May 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an important opinion1 in the ongoing fraudulent conveyance litigation brought by the unsecured creditors’ committee in the bankruptcy of homebuilder TOUSA, Inc. (“TOUSA”).

In Mothershead v. Delphi Corp., ARB No. 10-120, ALJ No. 2007-SOX-084, (ARB Apr. 26, 2012), the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) held that the bankruptcy discharge of an individually owned company’s claim also barred the individuals owner’s whistleblower complaint.

TOUSA involved one of the largest fraudulent transfer litigations in bankruptcy history.  The Bankruptcy Court agreed with the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee that both the so-called “New Lenders” and the “Transeastern Lenders” received fraudulent transfers as part of a July 31, 2007 financing transaction.  The District Court reversed in a scathing opinion, but today the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the District Court and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court’s opinion in its entirety.  The opinion can be found

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a paragraph in an asset purchase agreement qualified as an amendment to an employee benefit plan, highlighting a split between circuits of the U.S. Courts of Appeal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a decision with significant implications for borrowers and lenders, on May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a bankruptcy court's findings that upstream guarantees and associated liens delivered by a bankrupt debtor's subsidiaries were avoidable as fraudulent transfers.

According to a recent Delaware bankruptcy court decision, avoidance and disallowance risk travel with a distressed claim. This decision highlights the importance of diligence and the benefits provided by purchasing distressed debt on “distressed” documents.

The debt of a troubled company is trading in the secondary market at a significant discount because the company is highly levered and is at risk of default.

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court has approved procedures for a sale of AFA Investment, Inc. and its affiliates’ assets. As approved, the procedures are largely as reported here on April 20, 2012, with some changes:

• AFA has until June 11, 2012 to identify a stalking horse bidder. If one isn’t identified, AFA must file its own proposed form of asset purchase agreement on that date.
• Qualifying bids are due by June 19, 2012 at 4:00 p.m.
• If an auction is held, it will be on June 21, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

On May 8, 2012, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) entered its Order (the “Order”) Establishing Procedures to Assert Claims Arising under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code (“503(b)(9) Claims”) in the chapter 11 cases of AFA Investment, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) (Bankr. D. Del. 12-11127 (MFW)).