Bankruptcy Law Blog
Bankruptcy
Splintering Door Frames (Almost) as U.S. Marshals Enforce Order of the Bankruptcy Court
Last month, Jim Hoffman of Offit Kurman, P.A., Counsel to Cheryl E. Rose, a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee, accompanied the U.S. Marshals and the Prince George’s County Police to the home of an uncooperative debtor to enforce a Bankruptcy Court order to seize his computers, computer equipment, books, records and other items that may assist Ms. Rose, as Trustee, to administer the Bankruptcy Estate (“Seizure Order”). Prior to that time, the Bankruptcy Court had the patience of Job – – month after month, the debtor broke promises to the Court and to the Trustee to cooperate when producing books and records for more than ten businesses that each own real estate. The debtor also liquidated and retained more than $150,000 of assets during the bankruptcy without Court approval. The Court issued orders to enforce contempt sanctions, but the debtor continued his obstructive behavior. Even a court-imposed detention with the Marshals for two days did not alter the debtor’s behavior. The Seizure Order drafted by Counsel was in the form of a Writ of Assistance. This relief is unusual and requires coordination among the Office of the U.S. Marshals, the Trustee, Counsel and others. The Marshals from the Greenbelt, MD, location were extraordinarily helpful. Ms. Rose coordinated the presence of a locksmith (to avoid splintering door frames), and the Marshals provided manpower and protection, although the debtor’s schedules stated that he had no firearms. The Marshals took no chances. Prior to the date of the seizure, the Marshals communicated with local police to determine whether outstanding warrants existed for the debtor. In fact, there was. So the Marshals, local police, a locksmith and Counsel appeared unannounced at the debtor’s residence worth more than $700,000. Counsel was told to stay far away as law enforcement approached the property. The Marshals called the debtor on two (2) different telephone lines and pounded on the door. No one answered. So the locksmith began drilling a lock behind a tactical shield, drilling – – later admitting it was not his best work under the eyes of so many spectators and the threat of gunfire. After the door was opened, law enforcement announced themselves. The debtor then appeared, claiming to be asleep (despite being fully dressed, television on). The local police arrested the debtor on a prior charge, and Counsel proceeded through the residence, gathering computers, thumb drives and 20 boxes of records. Counsel diligently searched looking for an external hard drive the debtor referenced at a hearing and for more thumb drives. Within the debtor’s nightstand, Mr. Hoffman found 20 rounds of ammunition – – right next to a thumb drive. After further searching, he located a handgun and two pellet guns. The Marshals called the local police again (they were processing the debtor on the prior charge). A policeman returned, took possession of the handgun and ammunition and then returned to the station to arrest, for a second time, the debtor on new charges. The debtor was a convicted felon and was not permitted to possess a weapon or ammunition. The Trustee and Counsel thank the Marshals, Prince George’s County police and others who bravely assisted in the enforcement of the Bankruptcy Court’s Seizure Order. Who said the practice of law was dull?
September 2, 2022
Bankruptcy
Corporate Subchapter V Debtors Beware: Creditors May Object to Dischargeability of Fraud and Other Claims, at Least in Some Jurisdictions
On June 7, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“4th Circuit”) held that the discharge exceptions in Subchapter V of Chapter 11 (enacted as part of the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”)) apply to both individual debtors and corporate debtors. Cantwell-Cleary Co., Inc. v. Cleary Packaging, LLC (In re Cleary Packaging, LLC), 36 F.4th 509 (4th Cir. 2022). The 4th Circuit’s decision reversed the bankruptcy court’s “nicely crafted opinion,” which held that the exceptions to dischargeability incorporated into the Subchapter V provisions of Chapter 11 applied only to individual debtors. The 4th Circuit’s decision is a big deal in the bankruptcy world because it is the first decision to hold that corporate Chapter 11 debtors are subject to all discharge exceptions under Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. In this case, the debt at issue was a $4.7 million judgment against the debtor for intentional interference with contracts and tortious interference with business relations. Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is the section relied upon by creditors objecting to certain types of debts, including for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and willful and malicious injury. That section refers to dischargeability exceptions of an “individual debtor.” Section 1192, which applies only in Subchapter V cases, excepts from discharge debts “of the kind specified in section 523(a).” In holding that the Section 1192 dischargeability exception applies equally to corporate debtors, the 4th Circuit found that Section 1192 referred to “kinds” of debts as opposed to “kinds” of debtors. This decision is controlling precedent only in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Bankruptcy courts in Idaho and Michigan have held that the discharge exceptions in Subchapter V apply only to individual debtors. It will take time before there are any potentially conflicting circuit decisions on this issue that could result in review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, this author understands that certain groups may lobby Congress for a legislative fix to the 4th Circuit’s decision, which some believe will lead to unintended consequences at odds with the legislative history of Subchapter V. What are the potential unintended consequences? In Cantwell-Cleary, the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (“NABT”) filed a brief in support of appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc, which the 4th Circuit denied. In that brief, the NABT argued that the purpose of the SBRA was to “streamline the bankruptcy process by which small business debtors reorganize and rehabilitate their financial affairs.” The NABT argued, among other things, that by allowing claims under § 523(a) to proceed against corporate, small business debtors, Subchapter V cases will no longer proceed in a timely, cost-effective manner, nor will it help these companies remain in business. This may be true. For example, in a hypothetical case in which a creditor has a $4.7 million claim (that is not subject to a discharge exception), the debtor could confirm a plan (over the objection of creditors) that pays unsecured creditors only $100,000 if the debtor’s assets are not worth more than $100,000 and if the debtor does not generate more than $100,000 in projected disposable income over the plan term. That debtor could obtain a fresh financial start. By contrast, if that $4.7 million claim is nondischargeable, the debtor will be burdened with collection efforts and may not actually be able to survive. Indeed, the creditor with a nondischargeable claim ends up with significant leverage against the Subchapter V debtor trying to negotiate a consensual plan. Only time will tell whether other courts will follow the 4th Circuit and/or whether someone can convince Congress to clarify whether the discharge exceptions in Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to corporate Subchapter V debtors. For information on this topic, contact Stephen Metz.
August 31, 2022
Bankruptcy
Crypto Frame Taking Shape in Real Time
In 2022, CNBC reported on the EthCC conference in Paris, a gathering for hardcore Ethereum developers and technologists. A special spinoff event was a limited invitation only rave party in the Catacombs of Paris, labyrinth of centuries-old tunnels 65 feet underground, which hold the skeletal remains of around six million Parisians.[1] Visiting the Catacombs is considered illegal, although it appears to be tolerated. The CNBC report portrayed the event as surrounded by secrecy. Multiple teams were assembled via an anonymous Telegram group and gathered across the 14th arrondissement of Paris to sneak into the underground landmark. Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the crypto world navigated a different kind of labyrinth – those of a chapter 11 reorganization in U.S. bankruptcy courts. In July 2022, two crypto players filed chapter 11 petitions in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York– Voyager Digital, LLC, and its affiliates, and Celsius Network LLC and its affiliates. WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT? Voyager Digital operates a cryptocurrency brokerage that allows customers to buy, sell, trade, and store cryptocurrency on an easy-to-use and “accessible-to-all” platform. In addition to providing brokerage services, Voyager offers custodial services for customers who store cryptocurrency on Voyager’s platform. Voyager provides loans, typically in the form of a specific type of cryptocurrency, to counterparties in the cryptocurrency sector to facilitate liquidity or trade settlement. Interest earned from the Company’s loans is passed along to customers, who earn a “yield” on their stored cryptocurrency. See Declaration of Stephen Ehrlich, Chief Executive Officer of the Debtors in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions, Doc. No. 15. Celsius is a cryptocurrency-based finance platform that provides financial services to institutional, corporate, and retail clients across over 100 countries. According to the filings, Celsius was created in 2017 to be one of the first cryptocurrency platforms to which users could transfer their crypto assets and (a) earn rewards on crypto assets and/or (b) take loans using those transferred crypto assets as collateral. Headquartered in Hoboken, New Jersey, Celsius has more than 1.7 million registered users and approximately 300,000 active users with account balances greater than $100. See Declaration of Alex Machinsky, Chief Executive Officer of Celsius Network LLC in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions, Doc. No. 23. The bankruptcy court was flooded with letters from individuals who feel robbed by the debtors and call for return of their deposits. The treatment of crypto is not addressed in the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy courts are just starting to grapple with the treatment of cryptocurrency as an asset in bankruptcy proceedings. In fact, cryptocurrency, for more than ten years, has been characterized by price volatility and uncertainty regarding its legal status. Yet, in 2021, the crypto market’s value skyrocketed from $965 billion to as much as $2.6 trillion, according to a Morningstar analysis. After many years of debating whether cryptocurrency should be considered security or commodity and which federal agency should be the primary regulator, the more important question for the retail customers is whether they could recover in kind from a crypto brokerage like Voyager or a platform like Celsius whose model resembles bank operations – take deposits and use the deposit to make loans, but without the regulatory oversight that banks experience and without FDIC protection. For customers of securities brokers, there are regulatory mechanisms that provide certain protections. Securities brokers regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission are subject to a net capital rule—they must cease operations before their assets fall below the level that allows customer claims to be met. In addition, broker-dealers must belong to the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), which provides an insurance scheme whereby customers of failed broker-dealers may receive up to $500,000 from the SIPC fund. For customers dealing with futures, section 4d(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (C.E.A.) provides certain protections as it requires that customer funds received by a future commission merchant to margin, guarantee, or secure a customer’s futures contracts be held in segregated accounts, and not be commingled with the funds of the future commission merchant itself, nor used to guarantee the trades or contracts of any person other than the customer. Futures commission merchants must compute daily the amount of segregated funds on hand and the amount required to be held. Any shortfall must be reported immediately to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 17 C.F.R. Section 1.32. None of these protections would be available in these recent filings at first glance. These crypto reorganization proceedings could potentially chart the way forward and address critical questions like – Would cryptocurrency be treated as a commodity or currency, and when could it be treated as a security? How can the cryptocurrency be used in the marketplace to generate recovery, and what’s the proper timing for valuation of crypto assets? Would withdrawals of accounts within the 90-day period before the filing be subject to avoidance actions? [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/ethcc-paris-crypto-developers-gather-as-turmoil-grips-industry.html For further information, please feel free to reach out to Albena Petrakov
July 29, 2022
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7 Trustee's Perspective: Selling Litigation in Bankruptcy is Prohibited?
A Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee may receive the opportunity to pursue a large claim for an avoidable transfer, such as a fraudulent conveyance, a preferential transfer or a pre-petition claim that the debtor holds. However, such litigation may be expensive to pursue and there may be a large risk of loss. Should the trustee engage in “Bet the Farm” litigation at the trustee’s personal financial risk when outside counsel will not accept the case on a contingency fee basis and there are no other assets in the Estate? Should the trustee abandon the claim to the detriment of the creditors? The best alternative may be to sell the litigation, but is the sale barred by old common law principles? This scenario involves the principles of maintenance, champerty and barratry (the “Principles”), which trace back supposedly to ancient Greece. The Supreme Court found that 1) maintenance is helping another prosecute a suit; 2) champerty is maintaining a suit in return for a financial interest in the outcome, and 3) barratry is a continuing practice of maintenance or champerty. In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 425 (1978). The Principles were intended to prevent the manufacturing of frivolous or vexatious litigation. The fifty states are not uniform in their treatment of the Principles, with some states upholding the common law doctrines of champerty and maintenance in some form[1] and others having abolished the doctrine altogether or not recognizing it.[2] According to the Fourth Circuit, most jurisdictions no longer recognize causes of action for damages based on champerty and maintenance and such actions arose only where the alleged wrongdoer had no interest in the litigation.American Hotel Management Associates, Inc. v. Jones, 768 F.2d 562, 570 (4th Cir.1985), but Maryland still does. See Rojas v. Huntington Neighborhood Ass'n, No. DLB-21-28, 2022 WL 616815, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2022). Similarly, see In re DesignLine Corp., 565 B.R. 341 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2017) (holding that a proposed agreement between trustee and entity that had agreed to finance trustee's pursuit of litigation against debtor's insiders was prohibited by champerty under North Carolina law and could not be approved.) Of course, the bankruptcy court may need to address which state law to apply in any case. See Koro Co., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Co., 568 F.Supp. 280 (D.D.C. 1983) (the court determined that New York law of champerty, rather than New Jersey law, applied to invalidate the assignment of claims.) Also, see Riffin v. Consol. Rail Corp., 363 F. Supp. 3d 569, 575 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, 783 F. App'x 246 (3d Cir. 2019) Barratry and the other Principles may be defined by statute in some states and may cover a multitude of sins. See e.g. Md. Bus. Occ. & Prof. Code Ann. § 10-604(b).[3] As stated by the District Court of Maryland, the conduct proscribed by the current statute was first made a statutory offense in Maryland in 1908. “Before then, the officious stirring up of, maintaining, or meddling in litigation in which a person had no interest constituted the common law crime of barratry, maintenance, champerty, or embracery, depending on the particular nature of the conduct.” Abbott v. Gordon, No. CIV.A. DKC 09-0372, 2011 WL 828646, at *17 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2011). Both champerty and barratry require proof that the intermeddler expected to personally gain from or share in the outcome of the litigation. Now let’s go back to our creative and diligent Chapter 7 trustee. In the case of In re Simply Essentials LLC, No. 20-305, 2022 WL 1026045 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Apr. 5, 2022), the trustee proposed a sale of a potential worthwhile avoidance action against a creditor to another creditor that would litigate those suits in the best interest of the estate. The trustee sought authorization to sell the right to bring avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code regarding preferential and fraudulent transfers. The trustee believed the claims could provide the estate with a large recovery, but the Estate could not afford to pursue them. The bankruptcy court approved a settlement under which the trustee would sell the Estate’s right to bring avoidance claims to a creditor holding a $23.4 million claim over the potential defendant’s competing offer. The Court overruled an objection that these claims were not included in “property of the estate” and recognized the practicalities of the situation stating that: "To allow parties otherwise facing meritorious … avoidance claims to escape those claims because the trustee cannot afford to pursue them and they cannot be sold or transferred would be an absurd result.” The court reasoned that Section 541(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code recognizes these claims as assets of the Estate that can be sold under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and B.R. 9019(b). Regardless of whether a debtor or creditor opposes or supports the sale of litigation in bankruptcy by a trustee, one should not forget to check the applicable statute or the common law Principles under governing law before making an argument to the court. [1] These states include, among others, the bankruptcy-friendly Delaware and New York as well as Alaska, D.C., Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New York and Pennsylvania. [2]Arizona, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and recently Minnesota, among others, do not recognize the principles. [3] (b) Without an existing relationship or interest in an issue: (1) a person may not, for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person in a lawsuit; (2) a person who is not a lawyer may not, for personal gain, access a report for the purpose of soliciting another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person; and (3) a lawyer, except as provided in the Rules of Professional Conduct, may not: (i) for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the person in a lawsuit; (ii) directly or indirectly employ or in any way compensate or agree to employ or compensate any person as an expert witness or otherwise for the purpose of having that person solicit or attempt to solicit clients for the lawyer; (iii) knowingly represent a person who retained the lawyer as a result of solicitation prohibited under this section; or (iv) cause a case to be instituted without the authority of a client.(c) Any solicitation involving acts described in this section is prima facie evidence that the person soliciting is acting for gain. (1) a person may not, for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person in a lawsuit; (2) a person who is not a lawyer may not, for personal gain, access a report for the purpose of soliciting another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person; and (3) a lawyer, except as provided in the Rules of Professional Conduct, may not: (i) for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the person in a lawsuit; (ii) directly or indirectly employ or in any way compensate or agree to employ or compensate any person as an expert witness or otherwise for the purpose of having that person solicit or attempt to solicit clients for the lawyer; (iii) knowingly represent a person who retained the lawyer as a result of solicitation prohibited under this section; or (iv) cause a case to be instituted without the authority of a client.(c) Any solicitation involving acts described in this section is prima facie evidence that the person soliciting is acting for gain.
May 27, 2022
Bankruptcy
NOW WHAT? The Future of the Small Business Bankruptcy Act
We have all seen and heard of the mega-bankruptcy cases in the news, whether for reasonable economic causes (Forever 21, JC Penneys, GNC) or for attempted strategic advantage (J&J Talc Litigation; Boys Scouts Sexual Abuse claims, or various Religious Dioceses). The costs and expense to the business entities seeking federal bankruptcy protection has become astronomical. The legal and consulting fees are in the millions of dollars each month. The concept of seeking bankruptcy relief was clearly becoming cost-prohibitive for most businesses. Just prior to the unimaginable pandemic, Congress sought to remedy the problem by creating and adopting the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”). This Act became effective February 19, 2020. The purpose was to make bankruptcy more efficient and affordable to the real-world business community. The Act sought to provide these efficiencies for businesses with less than $2,725,625 in total debt. Literally, 30 days later, we are all in the throes of the modern COVID-19 Pandemic. At the time, no bankruptcy practitioner was truly aware of how SBRA would actually work; however, Congress, with perhaps some fear of small business collapse as a result of global economic shutdowns, adopted at lightning speed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). This Act was adopted and signed by the President on March 27, 2020- just over a month following SBRA’s effective date. The most critical provision of the CARES Act was the increase of the eligibility threshold for qualifying for a Small Business Bankruptcy from the established $2,725,625 claim amount to the increased sum of $7,500,000. This increase opened up the SBRA benefits to a significant amount of business. Why is this so important? Simply stated- the cost-effective benefits of Debtors in a Small Business Bankruptcy are significant. First, there is no obligation for a Small Business debtor to pay Quarterly Fees to the U.S. Trustee System. In a normal chapter 11 bankruptcy case, a company in chapter 11 is obligated to pay fees to assist in funding government oversight of the bankruptcy process by assessing a fee based on the total dollar amount of disbursements made by the bankruptcy company while it remains in a chapter 11 proceeding. Yes, the company, in addition to paying its regular bills and operation expenses, must pay an additional “fee” just from being in Bankruptcy. For the non-mega case- this obligation alone could, and has, caused the bankruptcy effort to fail. They did not file bankruptcy to be obligated to pay more for normal business operations. SBRA excuses Small Business debtors from paying this fee. A second major benefit is that no creditors committee is permitted to be formed in a Small Business Bankruptcy. In the normal chapter 11 case, quite often, the larger unsecured creditors are permitted to band together and form an official recognized committee to be authorized to negotiate their best treatment from the debtor. Once established, the creditors’ committee is permitted to hire professionals such as a lawyer and accountant to represent the committee. The costs associated with these professional fees, however, is required to be paid by the Debtor. Again, a cost that can torpedo many businesses in their quest to reorganize. SBRA eliminates this exposure by prohibiting creditors committees. The third significant benefit of the Small Business Bankruptcy is the elimination of the application of the absolute priority rule. This rule found under Section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor’s plan of reorganization cannot be approved by the bankruptcy court unless it provides that all creditors who hold a higher prioritized claim are first paid in full before a subordinated priority class of claims can retain any interest in the reorganized company. Since unsecured creditors claims hold a higher priority for payment than business owners, a business owner under a regular chapter 11 cannot retain their ownership interest unless some exception can be established. Since most small businesses are owned and controlled often by a few family members, eliminating this requirement goes a long way in promoting the salvation of America’s small businesses. So clearly, there are great benefits under SBRA which gives a majority of small businesses a better chance at survival. The CARES Act extended this benefit to even a wider and necessary breadth of business. Unfortunately- the CARES Act extension of this increased eligibility number was only intended to be temporary. Under the original enactment, the increase was intended to revert to the original lesser eligibility amount in one year- on March 27, 2021. With the COVID-19 pandemic remaining in flux by the early Spring of 2021, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, a Republican from Illinois, introduced S.473 entitled the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021 on February 25, 2021. The Act sought to further extend the increased eligibility for qualifying for a small business bankruptcy for an additional year until March 27, 2022. Remarkably, this legislation again moved through both Houses of Congress and was eventually signed by the President- actually after March 27, 2021- but who is watching. This brings us to present day, and the first question asked- NOW WHAT? See on March 14, 2022, Senator Durbin again introduced legislation in the Senate- S.3823, which without saying much of anything, looks to simply eliminate Section 1113 of the CARES Act. Why is this important- because that section is the section which establishes the sunset provision for the eligibility increase. If this section was eliminated, the increased eligibility threshold of $7,500,000 would become permanent. This certainly is well supported by the Debtor Bankruptcy Bar and the American Bankruptcy Institute. Regretfully the world again gets in the way of this important legislative amendment. On March 14, 2022, S. 3823 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Everyone was hoping for prompt consideration by Judiciary and then forwarding the Legislation to the full Senate for approval. The Bill is was optimistically anticipated before the expiration on March 27, 2022, as mandated under the current Section 1113. Unfortunately, however, last week, the Senate Judiciary got tied up with a certain Judiciary Hearing questioning some Judge looking to be approved to sit on the Supreme Court. The Committee did not have the time to consider S. 3823. The legislation was not adopted in time, and as a result, on Monday, March 28, 2022, eligibility to qualify for a small business bankruptcy reverted to the lesser $2,725,625. Due to inflationary provisions of the bankruptcy code, on April 1, 2022, the qualification number will be adjusted to $3,024,725, however, this number is a far cry from $7,500,000. Many viable businesses have been left out in the cold. The story- and hope is not all lost. Despite S.3823 remaining before the Senate Judiciary Committee when the higher threshold lapsed, there remains overwhelming support for this very necessary change for small business bankruptcy qualification. With the anticipated significant future increases in lending costs and a further demand on small business, demands of business will become even more pressing. Work remains to be done, but the increase in the qualification amount is favored and will hopefully be reinstated soon. On April 7, 2022, ten days after the expiration of the law, the Senate unanimously approved the legislation with some minor revisions and sent the adopted bill to the House. According to the Congressional website, the Bill was received by the House of Representatives on April 11, 2022, and held at the desk. What happens between now and then is anyone’s guess. For questions about the Small Business Bankruptcy Act, contact Paul J. Winterhalter at pwinterhalter@offitkurman.com.
April 28, 2022
Bankruptcy
Subchapter V Corner – Are Subchapter V Business Debtors at Risk to Fight Non-Dischargeability Creditor Complaints?
An interesting issue is percolating in the Fourth Circuit right now. This issue is whether, in a Subchapter V case, a creditor may successfully object to the dischargeability of certain debts of a non-individual debtor (as opposed to an individual debtor). The debts in question are the debts described in Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 523 is titled “Exceptions to discharge” and describes the types of debts that are not dischargeable by “an individual debtor.” Section 523 includes certain tax debts, debts for fraud, debts for breach of fiduciary duty, debts for willful and malicious injury, and certain debts payable to a governmental unit. In the bankruptcy world, we’ve all been trained that Section 523 does not apply in cases filed by non-individual debtors. That’s because the preamble to Section 523 refers to debts of “an individual debtor.” When I first learned of this issue, I thought it was farfetched that a creditor could object to the dischargeability of the type of debts described in Section 523 in a bankruptcy case filed by an entity. However, if you look at the statutory provisions at issue here, there does appear to be some logic behind it. And because Subchapter V of Chapter 11 has only been around since February of 2020, the statutory provisions are brand new. Why is this important? I mentioned above that a case is pending in the Fourth Circuit on this issue. The case arises in the Cleary Packaging, LLC case (the “Debtor”), which was filed on February 7, 2021, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Prior to the filing, a creditor, Cantwell-Cleary Co., Inc. (the “Creditor”), obtained a large money judgment against the Debtor for intentional interference with contracts and tortious interference with business relations (the “Debt”). After the Debtor filed for bankruptcy, the Creditor objected to the dischargeability of the Debt under Section 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury). Ultimately, the Bankruptcy Court held that the Bankruptcy Code limits the application of Section 523 in Subchapter V cases to individual debtors. The Creditor obtained permission to pursue a direct appeal to the Fourth Circuit. Interestingly, the case caught the attention of the United States, which filed an amicus brief in support of reversal, citing several types of debts described in Section 523, including tax debts, certain fines and penalties and criminal restitution debts. Another group of nine interested parties also filed a separate amicus brief in support of reversal because of their interest in enforcing wage theft claims. The Fourth Circuit conducted an oral argument on March 10, 2022, and has not yet issued a decision. The Creditor and the amici curiae argue, among other things, that because Section 1192 of the Bankruptcy Code (which governs discharges in nonconsensual plans in Subchapter V cases) excepts from discharge any debt “of the kind specified in section 523(a) of this title,” and does not differentiate between individual and non-individual cases, it applies equally to both individual and nonindividual debtors. We shall see. For information on this topic, contact Stephen Metz.
April 27, 2022
Bankruptcy
Lenders Beware
WHEN IS A LENDER CROSSING THE LINE AND ENTERING LENDER LIABILITY WONDERLAND? A 2022 decision out of a bankruptcy court in Texas reminded lenders that an overly aggressive approach to a borrower can result in lender liability[1] and substantial damages. In this case, brought by a Chapter 7 trustee, the bankruptcy court concluded that the lender destroyed the debtor’s enterprise value and future as a going concern and ultimately drove the debtor out of business. The Court found that for the lender’s actions, the debtor would not have failed as a going concern and would not have had to file bankruptcy. As a result, the Court awarded $16,966,928 in damages for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation, contractual and business interference, and willful violation of the automatic stay. The lender unsuccessfully tried to argue that the debtor was dead on arrival. [1] As the bankruptcy court put it, “[l]ender liability” is a broad umbrella term often used to describe various theories through which a borrower (or its trustee in bankruptcy) seeks to impose liability (or a remedy of some sort) against a former lender in a lending relationship that has soured.” THE STORY BEHIND THE AWARD Bailey Tool & Manufacturing Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates (“Bailey”) was the debtor/borrower in this tragic story. Republic Business Credit, LLC (“Republic”) was the lender. Before filing bankruptcy, Bailey and Republic entered into a factoring arrangement and an asset-based loan facility in February 2015. Republic performed substantial diligence in late 2014 and early 2015 before entering into the agreements. During the due diligence process, Republic had identified several issues, including unpaid ad valorem taxes, stretched accounts payable, and a major customer (the Department of Defense) that paid on a milestone rather than progressive billing basis. Despite these issues, the underwriter viewed the proposed transaction as a “strong deal” and approved it. Four months after entering into the agreements, Republic refused to advance funds as expected, declared default and made payments to itself from Bailey’s lockbox under the factoring agreement to pay down the ABL (Asset Based Lending) facility. The Court found that Republic took complete and total control of Bailey’s cash. It controlled not only the collections through the lockbox and all disbursements too. All funds advanced from July 2015 forward were sent directly to vendors selected by Republic vendors and a payroll company for the payroll of employees selected by Republic. The Court held that the lender’s handling of disbursement was inconsistent with the parties’ agreements—specifically, the Factoring Agreements contemplated that Republic would “pay to Seller [Bailey] an Advance.” In September 2015, Republic stopped funding altogether. Republic also became involved in replacing management and otherwise micromanaging the Debtor. It forced the Debtor’s Chief Executive Officer to give the Republic a lien on his exempt homestead. THE DECISION In a meticulous 145-page decision, the Court analyzed the Republic’s conduct, including and highlighting numerous internal lender email communications produced in discovery and presented during the trial. The Court adopted the bankruptcy trustee’s theory of the case, i.e. that the lender: (i) refused to advance funds in good faith and in the manner promised almost immediately after the agreements were signed taking a stance that the businesses were in an “over-advanced” position, which was not a defined concept in the agreements and was problematic in light of several weeks of due diligence and awareness regarding certain slow-paying accounts and inventory status; (ii) charged fees, expenses, penalties and other items against “reserves” (contributing to the alleged “over-advanced” position), without any transparency; (iii) exercised excessive control over the businesses by controlling what vendors, employees, and expenses got paid and insisting on direct payments to them by the factoring company rather than funding to the businesses as contemplated by the underlying agreements (i.e., the argument being that this was an improper exertion of control; there were no amendments of documents or forbearance agreements to justify deviating from the underlying agreements). WHAT ACTION TO AVOID AS A LENDER This decision can now serve as a roadmap for borrowers to establish lender liability. In summary, the factors considered by the Court include: Taking over the business function and exercising business judgment – Without the requisite knowledge and experience, Republic approved payments to certain vendors and materials suppliers, reordered the sequence in which different products at Bailey were manufactured, and changed the manufacturing priorities from keeping long-term customers, to doing “quick-turn” projects; Controlling the workforce at Bailey through controlling the payroll and ordering who got paid and who did not and what types or classifications of employees could get paid; Directing vendors of Bailey to pay Republic instead of Bailey under the threat of litigation, destroying the goodwill that Bailey had built up with these vendors; Lack of transparency and misrepresentations as to why: (i) why it considered Bailey to be in default, (ii) the status of funds availability or lack thereof, (iii) application of funds collected and charging numerous fees and expenses. The conduct of the lender, in this case, appears egregious. Still, it is a reminder for lenders to closely review with counsel contractual remedies and exercise caution in implementing these remedies.
March 31, 2022
Bankruptcy
Subchapter V Corner
The $7,500,000 debt ceiling for Subchapter V filings ended in the spring of 2022. With the enactment of Subchapter V of Chapter 11 (Sub V) of the Bankruptcy Code, viable small and medium-sized businesses have a more cost-efficient restructuring mechanism. Who is eligible? – Businesses and individuals engaged in commercial or business activities with no more than $2,725,625 of noncontingent liquidated secured and unsecured debt as of the date of filing or the order for relief. The business or individual cannot have owning of single-asset real estate as its primary activity. The CARES Act, however, increased the debt ceiling to $7,500,000 until March 27, 2021, and further extended it until March 27, 2022, with the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021, Democrats and Republicans are now weighing an extension of Subchapter V’s $7.5 million debt limit before it is due to sunset back to the previous amount under the Code. Without another renewal, the increased debt limit applies only to cases filed after the effective date of the CARES Act and before March 27, 2022. What is the advantage of a Subchapter V filing? There are several modifications of the traditional restructuring process that make a Subchapter V proceeding a more straightforward and cheaper path to reorganization: It allows the owner of the business to preserve their equity even when the business is not in a position to pay in full its secured and unsecured creditors (i.e., abrogates the so-called “absolute priority rule”). The creditors’ ability to block confirmation is significantly weakened because Subchapter V eliminates the traditional requirement that at least one impaired class of creditors accepts the reorganization plan. A reorganization plan will be deemed fair and equitable to objecting unsecured creditors if the debtor pays projected disposable income to be received over at least three years. A Subchapter V plan may provide for later payment of administrative expenses (i.e., payment through the plan) as opposed to payment on the effective date of the plan. Only the debtor can file a plan (i.e., eliminates the ability of creditors to propose their own restructuring plan). It eliminates US Trustee quarterly fees and other procedural and reporting burdens. For guidance on this matter, contact Albena Petrakov at apetrakov@offitkurman.com or at 212.380.4106.
March 22, 2022
