Often, asset protection advice is bereft of any discussion of California exemption statutes — which often provide the most efficient and safest asset protection. But to properly protect an asset in California, it's generally best to understand and maximize exemptions.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, without the consent of impaired creditors, a bankruptcy court cannot approve a "structured dismissal" that provides for distributions deviating from the ordinary priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. The ruling carries with it implications that may affect both pending and future bankruptcy proceedings.
Part One of a Two-Part ArticleThe issue of what constitutes a good-faith defense to a fraudulent transfer claim is a murky question that has produced a wide variety of reported decisions from appellate courts over the years. But a recent Sixth Circuit opinion sheds some clear light on a complicated fact pattern.
The past year has brought a wave of restaurant businesses filing for reorganization in Chapter 11. With inherently low profit margins, increased competition, limited pricing flexibility and a propensity for expansion without the support of underlying business fundamentals, the industry is particularly susceptible to business failure.
In Jevic, the members of SCOTUS — sans Neil Gorsuch, who had not yet been confirmed — declined the invitation to "upend" the absolute priority scheme. The question presented: "Can a bankruptcy court approve a structured dismissal that provides for distributions that do not follow ordinary priority rules without the affected creditors' consent?" SCOTUS's answer: a resounding "No." Would Gorsuch have changed that?
Secured creditors and debtor-in-possession (DIP) lenders that rely on standard carve-out provisions to limit the impact of bankruptcy professional fees on their collateral would be well-advised to take notice of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision from earlier this year.
A Chapter 11 debtor "cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure," held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in Blixseth v. Brown that under Barton v. Barbour, a plaintiff must obtain a bankruptcy court's permission before commencing a lawsuit in another forum against a member of the committee of unsecured creditors, and that Stern v. Marshall does not preclude bankruptcy courts from adjudicating such claims on the merits.
Uncertain Treatment of Make-Whole Premiums Upon Bankruptcy-Induced Acceleration and Redemption of Indentures
Make-whole premiums are essentially prepayment penalties imposed on borrowers when loans are paid off in advance of their maturity dates. These premiums remove the borrowers' incentives to refinance whenever interest rates drop, and provide stability and predictability to the world of secured lending.
This article focuses on the impact of section 552 of the Bankruptcy Code, which addresses the effect of a bankruptcy filing on property acquired by the debtor after the filing of the bankruptcy case (referred to as "after-acquired property") and proceeds of pre-bankruptcy collateral.
