In 2010, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated several amendments (Amendments) to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Article 9) designed to address problems that have arisen since revised Article 9 went into effect in 2001. Most, but not all, of the Amendments address the proper way to reflect debtor names on financing statements.
Timing and Enactment
Secured lenders often resort to non-judicial foreclosure sales of personal property upon a borrower’s default. Article 9, Part 6 of the Uniform Commercial Code requires that every aspect of such a sale must be commercially reasonable. However, the courts have historically provided little guidance as to what exactly constitutes a commercially reasonable sale. Fortunately, the Delaware Chancery Court recently issued a decision, entitled Edgewater Growth Capital Partners, L.P. v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc., C.A. No. 3601-CS (Del.Ch. Apr.
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.
Automotive sales in North America continue to climb, and many suppliers are prospering. However, there are some companies who are struggling and who may face bankruptcy. We have seen companies such as A123 Systems and certain subsidiaries of Revstone Industries recently file for protection under the Bankruptcy Code. How can a supplier to a troubled company protect itself? Must a supplier continue to supply on credit terms? The Uniform Commercial Code may assist such a supplier in this situation.
Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, which was added to the Code pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Ace of 2005 ("BAPCPA"), creates an administrative claim in favor of pre-petition suppliers of goods under certain circumstances. From the time of its enactment, courts and practitioners have sought clarity regarding the correct interpretation of key elements of this section of the Code. This article examines the concept of the date of "receipt" of goods for purposes of §503(b)(9).
Crews v. TD Bank, N.A. (In re Crews), 477 B.R. 835 (Bankr. M.D.Fla. 2012) –
A mortgaged building was destroyed by fire prior to the mortgagor’s bankruptcy filing. In an earlier opinion the bankruptcy court held in that the mortgagee had an equitable lien on the fire insurance proceeds of $350,000. This opinion addresses the debtors’ attempt to avoid the equitable lien using their “strong arm” powers.
In its recent decision in Valley Bank and Trust Company v. Spectrum Scan, LLC (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit overturned lower court decisions that were casting serious doubt on a lender’s ability to realize value from its security interest in the proceeds of FCC broadcast licenses. This alert will briefly describe the law governing security interests in FCC broadcast licenses, as well as the issues created by the lower courts – and ultimately resolved by the appeals court - in the Tracy case.
Grogan v. Harvest Capital Co. (In re Grogan), 476 B.R. 270 (Bankr. D. Or. 2012) –
In Grogan, the debtors planted and harvested Christmas trees. The bankruptcy court was called upon to determine whether the debtors could exercise their “strong arm” powers under Section 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to trump the liens of two of their lenders on the Christmas trees.
How can a professional ensure payment for services appropriately and professionally performed, even in the face of the client’s bankruptcy filing? Professionals considering representing a client in potential financial distress, in particular, will be interested in this discussion of the professional retainer, who owns it and when, and how to hold onto it.
Retainers Are Property of the Client
In a fairly controversial decision from January 2012, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held that a financing statement must contain the “legal” name of an individual as it appears on the individual’s birth certificate. Miller v. State Bank of Arthur (In re Miller), Adv. P. No. 11-9055 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2012). On appeal, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois reversed and held that the Uniform Commercial Code requires only that a “correct” name appear on the financing statement.