Sellers should be proactive in taking steps to protect themselves from a distressed buyer’s non-payment.  

In the current economic downturn, sellers are dealing with many formerly good customers whose financial health is deteriorating. To protect their interests, sellers should assess their rights under applicable contracts and law and develop a strategy to minimize their exposure.

Step 1 – Assess the Parties’ Contractual Rights

A federal bankruptcy court, applying New York law, has dismissed an adversary proceeding brought by a bankrupt home mortgage company against its directors and officers liability insurers, holding that coverage for a pre-petition lawsuit against the mortgage company was barred by application of an “inadequate consideration” exclusion. Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Case No. 07-11880 (CSS) (Jointly Administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 15, 2008). The court also held that the coverage dispute was a non-core proceeding.

Effective March 31, 2009 (not April 1), Georgia lien law is officially set to undergo a series of substantial changes, as a result of Governor Sonny Purdue signing Senate Bill 374 into law. These changes are significant and exist throughout the lien statutes. Many of the revisions require new, very specific procedures and forms that must be precisely followed in order to prevent waiving lien rights. Although the new lien law is not technically retroactive, it appears that several of the requirements could pertain to liens filed prior to March 31.  

One of the key protections afforded to secured creditors under the Bankruptcy Code is the right of a holder of a secured claim to credit bid the allowed amount of its claim as part of a sale process under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Specifically, section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:

As if buying distressed debt is not challenging enough given the underlying business considerations, the possible, and perhaps likely, bankruptcy filing of your soon-to-be borrower presents a maze of issues the note purchaser should consider before acquiring the debt.

1. Know Your Seller

The Superior Court of Delaware recently held that a D&O insurer failed to timely respond to it insured’s reimbursement requests and must therefore provide reimbursement for prior legal defense costs and advance future defense costs within sixty days of receipt of invoices. HLTH Corp. v. Axis Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 07C-09-102, 2009 WL 756306 ( Del. Sup. Ct. Mar. 23, 2009).

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed the collateral agent for senior lenders to credit bid for the debtors’ assets even though all of the senior lenders had not authorized the bid. One of the senior lenders had objected to the group’s acquisition of the debtors’ assets by the credit bid. In re GWLS Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 453110 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 23, 2009) (Walsh, J.).

Under section 363(f) of the bankruptcy code, a trustee may sell assets of the bankruptcy estate free and clear of liens and other interests. Generally, absent consent of the lienholder, a trustee may only sell assets free and clear of liens under one of the following conditions:

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has affirmed a bankruptcy court's ruling that defense costs advanced by an insurer to a debtor under an Interim Fee Advancement and Non-Waiver Agreement (the Interim Agreement) were not held in trust and, therefore, constituted property of the debtor's estate. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. (In re Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y.), No. 09-CV-4052, 2009 WL 1684022 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2009).

On November 4, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC” or “Commission”) held a public forum to discuss proposed amendments to the Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) to address the sale of debt relief services. The proposed rules would reshape the availability of alternatives to bankruptcy and services to counter the efforts of debt collectors.