Several recent legal developments will likely impact acquisition finance.
Sometime this summer, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in U.S. v. Quality Stores. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the Sixth Circuit’s holding that supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (“SUB payments”) relating to severance payments are not subject to FICA taxes. U.S. v. Quality Stores, 693 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012). The Sixth Circuit decision resurrects a long-disputed issue regarding the applicability of FICA to severance pay.
Recently, two courts of appeal dismissed as moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) appeals of orders authorizing the sale of assets. The courts’ analysis focused on whether granting the appellant’s relief from the lower courts’ order would affect the asset sale. Thus the trend in the appellate courts is that only appeals that will not affect the sale itself (such as a dispute over the distribution of sale proceeds) are not subject to being dismissed as moot.
The Delaware State Legislature recently amended Article IV, section 11 of the Delaware Constitution to add United States Bankruptcy Courts to the expanding list of courts and agencies that may certify questions to the Delaware Supreme Court. The list already included other Delaware courts, the United States Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a United States District Court, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or the highest appellate court of any other state. See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(8).
The opinion by the Delaware bankruptcy court in In re Fisker Auto. Holdings, Inc., raised alarm bells for secured creditors throughout the country. Many worry that it will diminish the valuable right of secured creditors to credit bid, which is the right to bid up to the amount of a secured claim without paying cash.
On January 17, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) entered an order in the Fisker Automotive (“Fisker”) chapter 11 bankruptcy cases limiting the ability of Fisker’s secured lender, Hybrid Tech Holdings, LLC (“Hybrid”), to credit bid at an auction for the sale of substantially all of Fisker’s assets.1 Hybrid immediately sought an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s
Last week, the 8th Circuit B.A.P. affirmed, first noting that criminal judgments, including restitution awards and liens, are afforded special protection from bankruptcy discharge.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that no exception exists to Tennessee’s general prohibition on direct actions against an insurer, even in cases where the insured has declared bankruptcy triggering an automatic stay before a judgment in the underlying action. Mauriello v. Great American E&S Insurance Co., 2014 WL 321921 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2014). In so holding, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that an adequate remedy remains notwithstanding the automatic stay for a claimant to obtain a judgment against a bankrupt insured.
Law360, New York (February 25, 2014, 1:26 PM ET) -- In the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Fisker Automotive Holdings Inc., a manufacturer of hybrid electric vehicles, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently ruled that the proposed stalking horse purchaser of substantially all of Fisker’s assets in a sale under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code was entitled to credit bid only a fraction of its secured claim. In re Fisker Auto. Holdings Inc., No. 13087 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 17, 2014) [Docket No. 483].
Last Friday, Judge Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied Hybrid Tech Holdings LLC’s appeal of the Delaware bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. et al, to (i) cap Hybrid Tech’s credit bid for Fisker Automotive’s assets, and (ii) require that the assets be sold via a public auction rather than directly to Hybrid Tech in a private sale.