Bryan Cave Bankruptcy & Restructuring Blog

Main Content

Handy List of Basic Issues to Consider for the Transactional Workout

February 2, 2017

Authors

Justin Sabin and Bryce Suzuki

Handy List of Basic Issues to Consider for the Transactional Workout

February 2, 2017

by: Justin Sabin and Bryce Suzuki

While significant energy here at the Bankruptcy Cave is devoted to substantive bankruptcy matters, not all aspects of a general insolvency practice are always fun and litigation.  Oftentimes insolvency lawyers add the most value by helping clients avoid a bankruptcy filing, or by successfully resolving a case through a consensual transactional restructuring.  Below are a few key issues diligent counsel for creditors and debtors should think through in connection with a transactional restructuring.[1]

1. Notice and Demand After Default. As anyone reading this knows, a lender often sends a notice of default and maybe even a demand for payment after its borrower defaults.  However, simply sending a notice of default and demand for payment may not always be sufficient or have the intended effect.  Most loan documents provide a cure period before a breach becomes an actionable default.  Some loan documents will only permit a lender to accrue

Read More

A Debtor’s Allegedly False Financial Statement Doesn’t, At All, Excuse a Lack of Lender Diligence

January 9, 2017

Authors

Mark Duedall

A Debtor’s Allegedly False Financial Statement Doesn’t, At All, Excuse a Lack of Lender Diligence

January 9, 2017

by: Mark Duedall

A decision rendered during the sometimes peaceful interlude between Christmas and New Year’s is worth reading, and heeding.  Hurston v. Anzo (In re Hurston), Adv. Proc. No. 15-2026 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Dec. 27, 2016) is a helpful reminder to anyone representing lenders or creditors which are hell-bent-for-leather to pursue a non-dischargeability claim against a debtor that submits a false written statement (e.g., a personal financial statement) to obtain credit.  Often, in the fervor of the start of a bankruptcy case, the creditor (and its lawyer) will make great hay from the fact that a debtor may have lied in a pre-petition credit application, or forbearance agreement, or other written medium.  However, the facts of Hurston show that a creditor (and its lawyer) should pause, take a breath, and critically evaluate whether the creditor actually relied on the pre-petition writing from the debtor, and whether that creditor’s reliance was also, in fact, reasonable.  If

Read More

Supreme Court Weighs Granting Cert on Bankruptcy Issues Involving Surcharge and Voting Rights of Assignee of Insider Claim

December 5, 2016

Authors

Jay Krystinik

Supreme Court Weighs Granting Cert on Bankruptcy Issues Involving Surcharge and Voting Rights of Assignee of Insider Claim

December 5, 2016

by: Jay Krystinik

The Supreme Court is considering whether to grant review of two bankruptcy cases.  On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States.  Because the Supreme Court’s justices normally give significant weight to the federal government’s recommendations regarding interpretations of federal statutes (here, the Bankruptcy Code), the Solicitor General’s forthcoming briefs could influence whether the Supreme Court grants cert. on the two notable bankruptcy cases.

Southwest Securities v. Segner

The first case under consideration is Southwest Securities v. Segner (In re Domistyle, Inc.), 811 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2015).  At the commencement of this case, the trustee believed the debtor possessed equity in certain real property that could benefit unsecured creditors.  Id. at 693-94.  The property was encumbered by Southwest Securities’ lien.  After marketing the property for a year, the trustee was unable to sell the property and ultimately abandoned it to

Read More

For Whom the Bell Tolls: Obligations and Risks of Third-party Witnesses under Rule 2004 Examinations.

November 27, 2016

Authors

James Maloney

For Whom the Bell Tolls: Obligations and Risks of Third-party Witnesses under Rule 2004 Examinations.

November 27, 2016

by: James Maloney

Two recent Bankruptcy Court cases both remind and illustrate the power and risks presented by discovery of facts and documents under Bankruptcy Rule 2004, showing that it can compel third parties to provide information to support later litigation against them or cause them to lose their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

  • In re Great Lakes Comnet, Inc.[1]/ (a copy of the case is here: great-lakes-comnet-inc), the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan held that the Committee of Unsecured Creditors was entitled to conduct a Rule 2004 examination of a third-party company while explicitly recognizing that the intent of the examination was to prepare for and inform the committee regarding later litigation against the third-party.
  • In re Mavashev[2]/ (a copy of the case is here: in-re-mavashev), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that a third-party witness would not
    Read More

Preliminary Injunctions in Bankruptcy Courts: Can a Litigant Get a Second Opinion?

November 27, 2016

Authors

Michelle Masoner

Preliminary Injunctions in Bankruptcy Courts: Can a Litigant Get a Second Opinion?

November 27, 2016

by: Michelle Masoner

District courts can hear an appeal from any interlocutory order, as long as they agree to accept the appeal.  28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).  Final judgments, orders and decrees are always immediately appealable.  28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).  Certain interlocutory orders, such as orders increasing or reducing the exclusive time periods for a debtor to file and obtain acceptance of a plan for reorganization under Chapter 11 are also immediately appealable.  28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2).  Other interlocutory orders are appealable only “with leave of the court.”  Preliminary injunctions are interlocutory orders that fall into the last category.

The timing and process for perfecting an appeal of a preliminary injunction is not certain.  Recently, Judge James Zagel in the Northern District of Illinois declined to grant leave to appeal a preliminary injunction entered in the bankruptcy court, finding the debtor had no automatic right to appeal.  Gilman v. Goldberg (In re Goldberg),

Read More

Creditors Beware: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Expands Purview Of Potential FDCPA Violations And Furthers Circuit Split

October 23, 2016

Authors

Natalie Daghbandan

Creditors Beware: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Expands Purview Of Potential FDCPA Violations And Furthers Circuit Split

October 23, 2016

by: Natalie Daghbandan

In Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., No. 15-20392 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2016) the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently joined the circuit split interpreting the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) in a way that further limits debts collectors.

Under the FDCPA the term “debt collectors” is not limited to those collecting debts for others –  certain creditors collecting debts directly owed to them can be bound by the FDCPA.   This statute prohibits debt collectors from using “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”  A debt collector who violates the FDCPA can be forced to pay actual damages, costs, reasonable attorney’s fees and up to $1,000 of additional damages if the plaintiff is an individual or up to $500,000 or one percent of the debt collector’s net worth in a class action.

In Daugherty, the Fifth Circuit considered whether

Read More

Executive Compensation Under Section 503(c) – The Sports Authority Story

October 18, 2016

Authors

Craig Schuenemann

Executive Compensation Under Section 503(c) – The Sports Authority Story

October 18, 2016

by: Craig Schuenemann

A recent, and highly publicized, decision from the case formerly known as Sports Authority, In re TSA WD Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 16-10527 (MFW), Bankr. D. Del. (Docket #2863, Aug. 31, 2016), allowed the defunct company to pay three unnamed senior executives $1.425 million in “incentive pay” to remain with the company and oversee its liquidation.[i]  Judge Mary Walrath granted Sports Authority’s[ii] Motion for Order (A) Approving Modified Executive Incentive Program and Authorizing Payments Thereunder and (B) Authorizing the Debtors to File the Unredacted Modified Key Employee Incentive Program Under Seal (Docket #2746) (the “EIP Motion,” a copy of which is here) over the strenuous objection of the U.S. Trustee (Docket #2809) (the “UST Objection,” a copy of which is here), and only after she had denied a similar from the Debtors request a month earlier.  More importantly, Judge Walrath authorized the

Read More

California Court Rejects “Sham Guarantee” Defense

October 18, 2016

Authors

Daniel Wheeler and Joseph Poppen

California Court Rejects “Sham Guarantee” Defense

October 18, 2016

by: Daniel Wheeler and Joseph Poppen

Editor’s Note:  Bank Bryan Cave is going into its ninth year as one of the nation’s leading blogs on financial institution regulatory, M&A, securities, and litigation issues.  Here’s a recent post on Bryan Cave’s successful work for the California Bankers Association (“CBA”), headed up by Joseph Poppen of BC’s San Francisco office.

 

Bryan Cave LLP recently served as counsel for amicus curiae California Bankers Association (“CBA”) and helped score a victory in an important California appellate case of great interest to the banking industry, LSREF2 Clover Property 4 LLC v. Festival Retail Fund 1 357 N. Beverly Drive LP (Second District, California Court of Appeal case number B259937) (Link to the opinion is here).

The trial court had ruled that the guarantor of a commercial loan was excused from performance on the grounds that the guaranty was a “sham,” structured by the lender

Read More

Madoff Continues On: Recent Tax Court Case Rules on Treatment of Madoff Account

October 16, 2016

Authors

Stacie Rottenstreich and karin Barkhorn

Madoff Continues On: Recent Tax Court Case Rules on Treatment of Madoff Account

October 16, 2016

by: Stacie Rottenstreich and karin Barkhorn

Editor’s Note:  Our colleagues in Bryan Cave’s Private Client practice are on the cutting edge of tax matters, estate administration, challenging end-of-life matters, and other issues of estate and family law.  This area of law evolves at just about the speed of light.  Their leading blog, Life, Death, and Taxes demonstrates a commitment to thought leadership in this area, and we at The Bankruptcy Cave were excited to see this discussion of a recent Madoff-related ruling.  Kudos to Stacie Rottenstreich and Karin Barkhorn from Bryan Cave’s New York Private Client group for this interesting writeup.

In a recent Tax Court decision, Harry H. Falk, and Steven P. Heller, Co-Executors, v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, the United States Tax Court ruled that in the case of the Madoff Ponzi scheme, an estate which paid estate tax on Madoff assets which

Read More