Much to the chagrin of golf course lenders, bankruptcy and appellate courts around the country have consistently held that a properly-perfected mortgage or security interest in golf course revenues, including cart rentals and green fees, is not sufficient to grant the lender an interest in the golf course’s “cash collateral” if the business ends up in bankruptcy*. The result is that those revenues can be spent by the golf course borrower in the bankruptcy case to cover its administrative or operating expenses over the objection of the lender.

On March 19, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Grede v. FCStone, LLC, Nos. 13-1232, 13-1278 (7th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014), an opinion that reinforces the importance of the portability of investment accounts carrying commodity customer funds. The Seventh Circuit held that commodity futures customer funds must be protected in an insolvency situation, and that the release of customer funds to meet margin obligations should be upheld at all costs.

Two recent decisions may affect the assets of individuals available to satisfy creditors' claims in bankruptcy. In the first decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that married, joint debtors received value in exchange for tuition payments and rejected the bankruptcy trustee's arguments that the tuition payments were fraudulent transfers.

As seen in The Community Banker

Bankruptcy Court Decision

On March 4, 2014, a unanimous United States Supreme Court decided Law v. Siegel¹ and clarified that exercising statutory or inherent powers, a bankruptcy court may not contravene specific statutory authority. Law will likely have broad implications for business bankruptcy cases even though it directly involved the exercise of a bankruptcy judge’s authority under section 105(a) to create a pragmatic solution to the actions of a bad actor in a consumer bankruptcy case.

A central purpose of bankruptcy is to grant debtors a fresh start – in bankruptcy terms, a “discharge” of existing debts.  But not all debts are dischargeable.  Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A), for example, prevents the discharge of debts resulting from “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud . . . .”  What if a principal incurs a large debt based not on his own fraud, but on the fraud of his agent?  Is that debt dischargeable?  That was the question addressed recently by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel inIn re Huh, BAP No.

On March 4, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Law v. Siegel, No. 12-5196. The Court held that the bankruptcy court violated the express terms of § 522 of the Bankruptcy Code when it ordered that the $75,000 protected by a debtor's homestead exemption be available to pay a trustee's attorney's fees as an administrative expense. The order exceeded the limits of the bankruptcy court's authority under § 105(a) of the Code and its inherent powers.

Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee to recover transfers from creditors that are labeled “preferences.” To avoid a transfer as a preference, the trustee must generally demonstrate that the transfer: (1) was of an interest of the debtor in property, (2) was made to or for the benefit of a creditor, (3) was made on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor, (4) was made while the debtor was insolvent, (5) was made within 90 days before the petition date (within a year if the creditor was an insider) and (6) enabled the creditor to receive more than the c

It seems that most bankruptcy decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court involve individual debtors, and the Supreme Court’s latest opinion is no exception. Even though the decision is not in a business bankruptcy case, it examines the bankruptcy court’s powers under Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.