Bankruptcy and Restructuring Blog

With bankruptcy filings up by more than 25% in the recent past, and with the promise of many more to come in the near future, an increasing number of businesses and individuals may find themselves listed amongst the largest unsecured creditors of a debtor and with much to lose in a bankruptcy case. As one of the largest creditors, these same businesses and individuals may also find themselves being solicited to serve on “official” unsecured creditors’ committees. While a creditor who is already owed significant amounts of money by a debtor may consider any further time or effort expended in connection with a debtor to be a waste of resources, serving on a creditors’ committee can often be a valuable opportunity to be involved in the direction a debtor's case and reorganization (or ultimate liquidation) will take and to ensure the maximum recovery for all unsecured creditors, including itself. This article provides a brief overview of what a committee is, who may serve on a committee, what service entails, and some of the pros, cons and other considerations of and for serving on a creditors committee.

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 ("ARRTA").  ARRTA contains significant potential Federal income tax relief for businesses.  Some of the more important provisions are summarized in the remainder of this article.

Most maritime shipping companies were operating profitably through the summer of 2008 until the "perfect storm" of the credit crisis and the worldwide recession struck, leading to the collapse of both the commodity and freight markets.  The resulting upheaval has affected trade credits, shipbuilding deliveries, orders, chartering, and sales-and-purchases, among other things, for shipping companies worldwide.  Reports of bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation and complex debt restructurings of shipping and other maritime industry companies have begun surfacing in the trade press, with more to come.

As a result of the turmoil in the shipping industry, actions seeking attachments under Supplemental Admiralty Rule B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have risen dramatically, further exacerbating the problems facing cash-strapped shipping companies.  As the recent U.S. bankruptcy filings of Armada (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. and Atlas Shipping A/S demonstrate, Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceedings under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code may provide struggling shipping companies with a powerful tool for protecting their assets from Rule B Attachments.

A common strategy for acquiring the business of a troubled company is to purchase assets rather than acquire all outstanding capital stock of the target, based on the general principle that a purchaser of assets is not responsible for liabilities of its seller absent an express or implied assumption.  Does the strategy work?  Depending on the liability and circumstances, the answers are "No" and "Maybe," and sometimes a qualified "Yes."  In troubled economic times, buyers may reconsider whether they are willing to rely upon indemnity by the seller or its owners, particularly since doctrines of public policy may render such an indemnity unenforceable in certain situations.

Bankruptcy filings are skyrocketing as more and more companies are going deep into the red.  For retailers or their landlords holding leases in commercial property, there are special considerations to keep in mind.  This post will provide some basic information on the rights of non-debtor tenants and landlords under unexpired non-residential property leases when a debtor–landlord or –tenant, respectively, files a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.

In Burkhart v. Coleman, (In re Tippett) --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 4070690 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that an unauthorized post-petition sale of real property may be upheld where: 1) the bankruptcy trustee failed to record the bankruptcy petition with the county recorder; and 2) a bona fide purchaser thereafter bought and recorded title in the property.  As welcome as this news is to bona fide purchasers in California, the opinion raises interesting issues pertaining to acts arguably taken in violation of the automatic stay under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code by holding that the automatic stay may not apply to sales or transfers of property initiated by the debtor under certain circumstances.

In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that asset sales in bankruptcy that occur after plan confirmation will be exempt from certain and often potentially costly state taxes, whereas sales that occur before plan confirmation will not be so exempt. In so ruling, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the meaning of the statutory phrase "under a plan confirmed under [Chapter 11] of the bankruptcy Code," as codified in 11 U.S.C. § 1146(a).

The case arose from the bankruptcy of Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.  At one time among the nation's most successful cafeteria chains, Piccadilly had fallen on hard financial times.  In 2003, Piccadilly filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Florida.  As the centerpiece of its reorganization efforts, Piccadilly sought court authorization to sell virtually all of its assets in a § 363(b)(1) sale pursuant to a settlement agreement reached with creditors.  The bankruptcy court granted this authority.  In authorizing the sale, the bankruptcy court further ruled Piccadilly's transfer of assets would be "exempt from stamp taxes under § 1146(a)."  (Maj. Slip Op. at 2.)  Piccadilly closed its sale on March 16, 2004.

In a recently-issued Revenue Procedure (Rev. Proc. 2008-28), the IRS states that the modification of certain mortgage loans under foreclosure prevention programs involving, for example, interest rate reductions, principal forgiveness, extensions of maturity and alterations in the timing of changes in an interest rate generally will not cause the IRS either to challenge the tax status of certain securitization vehicles that hold the loans or to assert that those modifications create a liability for tax on a prohibited transaction. This relief is granted to real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) and investment trusts where the mortgage loan meets all of the following conditions:

In the case of The HA2003 Liquidating Trust v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. 2008) ("HA2003"), HALO, an acquiring company, hired CSFB, an investment banker, to (i) renegotiate the economic terms of a stock acquisition of the dot-com target company, Starbelly.com, and (ii) issue a fairness opinion on behalf of HALO in connection with the acquisition.  Concluding that CSFB did not act grossly negligent in issuing the fairness opinion even though the fairness opinion was based on numbers known by HALO's management to be inaccurate, the Seventh Circuit refused to impose liability on CSFB for alleged damages suffered by HALO and its shareholders when HALO became insolvent and filed bankruptcy after the acquisition.

By Order, dated January 14, 2008, United States Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, granted the motion (the "Motion") filed by a group of creditors seeking transfer of venue of the Dunmore Homes, Inc. (the "Debtor") bankruptcy case from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.  A number of other creditors and the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee joined in the Motion.  The Motion was opposed by the Debtor, bondholders and two bank creditors.