Assignee's Preference Avoidance Power
In <i>Sherwood Partners, Inc., Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of International Thinklink Corporation v. Lycos, Inc.</i>, 394 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a divided court, recently held that a state statute authorizing an assignee for the benefit of creditors to void a preferential transfer is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code.
Divorce and the New Bankruptcy Law
Among the more arduous tasks for an attorney handling a matrimonial case is the negotiation of the financial aspects, primarily support and maintenance and the division and distribution of marital property. In many cases, exhaustive financial disclosure is necessary; evaluations of property are obtained and challenged, and months of negotiations and legal services result, finally, in a resolution of the financial issues.
Retention of Restructuring Professionals
Restructuring professionals must be acutely aware of potential conflicts of interest. Indeed, federal courts on occasion have disqualified a professional or ordered the disgorgement of the professional's fees in situations where that professional failed to properly disclose a conflict of interest. The importance of conflicts of interest is especially evident in today's global economy, in which restructuring matters routinely involve many of the same parties.
You Just Can't Give it Away
Companies in Chapter 11 may have capital structures consisting of multiple tiers of debt and equity that have competing priorities of payment vis-'-vis the company and its assets. The claims and interests of these competing stakeholders may be resolved in a Chapter 11 plan. To emerge from Chapter 11, the company must obtain approval of a plan that deals with all creditor claims and equity interests in accordance with the (sometimes complicated) rules contained in the Bankruptcy Code. In an effort to achieve an agreed-upon Chapter 11 plan, some creditors may give up (or gift) a portion of the recovery to which they would otherwise be entitled to another class of creditors or equity holders.
Key Creditors' Rights Decision
The Second Circuit handed down a key creditors' rights decision on April 1 in <i>Sharp Int'l Corp. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (In re Sharp Int'l Corp. & Sharp Sales Corp.)</i>, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5241(2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2005). The court affirmed the lower courts' finding that a secured lender was not liable for aiding and abetting management's breach of fiduciary duty, and not liable for receiving a $12.25 million loan repayment from a closely held borrower it correctly suspected of engaging in massive fraud. The decision limits the scope of a lender's duties to its borrower and other creditors. Absent the lender's participation in its borrower's fraud, the lender should have no liability on a fraudulent transfer theory or on any other basis, at least in New York, where Sharp arose.
What Happens to Chapter 11 Cases?
This Special Edition of <i>The Bankruptcy Strategist</i> is devoted entirely to the recently enacted "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005," which makes the most sweeping changes to the Bankruptcy Code seen in the last 20 years (although the law does nothing to address some significant issues that have been much debated, such as asbestos, forum shopping, and pension liability). The legislation primarily takes aim at perceived consumer bankruptcy abuses, but will also affect numerous aspects of business bankruptcy practice. This article analyzes key changes to the Bankruptcy Code that will be important to most business bankruptcy participants. Other articles in this issue address in detail the changes related to cross-border insolvencies, executory contracts, financial contracts, investment bankers, and plan exclusivity. Neither we nor the other contributors to this edition have attempted to address the substantial changes affecting only individuals who file for Chapter 11 relief, or changes to the special provisions for "small business" and "single asset real estate" debtors, as those terms are defined in the Code.
Financial Contract Amendments to Bankruptcy Code
Esoteric and arcane, the financial contract provisions of the new Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 -- those dealing with repurchase agreements, securities contracts, swap agreements, forward and commodity contracts -- have been given short shrift by a mainstream media focused on the more "newsworthy" consumer provisions of that legislation. However, to bankruptcy practitioners focusing on larger commercial cases or involved in the capital markets, these amendments are important and deserve a close look.
Big Investment Banks Win Big in Congress
The major investment banks secured a big win with the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the Act). They quietly convinced Congress to remove the strongest limitation in the Bankruptcy Code (' 101(14)) on a Chapter 11 debtor's employment of an investment banker. That prohibition, in effect since the Depression, had essentially prevented the debtor's retention of a banker for any of the debtor's outstanding securities The securities industry called the statutory ban "anti-competitive."
