Reclamation claimants have long enjoyed special protections under Bankruptcy Code section 546(c), which recognizes that “the rights and powers of a trustee... are subject to the right of a seller of goods,” including reclamation rights under Section 2-702 of the Uniform Commercial Code. At a minimum, Section 2-702 clearly requires that a reclamation claimant must make demand upon its buyer in order to reclaim its goods and protect its rights. However, Paramount Home Entertainment Inc. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 3522089 (ED Va., Sept.
In an apparent case of first impression in Massachusetts, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently held that an allonge must be physically affixed to the original promissory note to be effective.
Summary
In a 28 page decision signed April 29, 2011, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that in order for a transfer to be considered “substantially contemporaneous” as used by Bankruptcy Code §547(c), it does not necessarily need to comply with the timing requirements of §547(e). Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
Background
Mata, et al., v. Eclipse Aerospace, Inc. (In re AE Liquidation, Inc., et al.) Case No. 08-51891, 2011 BL 51047 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 28, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Spectrum Scan LLC and Joli Lofstedt, Trustee v. Valley Bank & Trust Co. (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corporation), 438 B.R. 323 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In a ruling of much consequence to secured lenders everywhere, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Motors Liquidations v. JPMorgan Chase Bank that filing an incorrect UCC-3 termination statement can be a costly mistake.
THE UCC-3 TERMINATION STATEMENT
A recent decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit, Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company v. Keach,[1] ruled that a lender (Wheeling) did not have a perfected security interest in a business interruption insurance policy or its proceeds. The decision in Wheeling is inconsistent with a prior court decision that dealt with business interruption insurance as proceeds of collateral and was more favorable to secured creditors, and therefore should be of concern to lenders.
Background
Client Alert February 5, 2015 Second Circuit to Lenders: Get Your UCC Filings Right By Geoffrey R. Peck and Jordan A. Wishnew1 INTRODUCTION On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion regarding a mistaken UCC-3 termination statement that all loan market participants should consider carefully.
On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.1
Background