BCLP Global Restructuring & Insolvency Developments

Global Restructuring & Insolvency Developments

Secured Transactions

Main Content

Singularis v Daiwa: UK banks beware!

Editors’ Note:  The Global Restructuring and Insolvency Developments team of BCLP presents this very concerning opinion for any financial institution that operates in the United Kingdom.  Specifically, in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd (copy of the ruling is here), the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) considered a bank’s duty, commonly known as a Quincecare duty, to protect companies from fraud by authorised officers.  Robin Ganguly and Alexandra Kirby of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s London office present the GRID readers with a summary and the key takeaways of this ruling.

Key points

  • Banks (and other financial institutions) have a duty to protect companies from fraud by authorised officers although the extent of the duty will depend upon the services being provided.
  • An objective test needs to be satisfied as to whether there were reasonable grounds for the

Circuit Split – Allowing Receiverships by Contract

“I think now that I’m older, I do think I’m the greatest receiver to ever do it.” -Randy Moss, Receiver, probably not talking about Fed. R. Civ. P. 66.

Editors’ Note: Will Easley of our Kansas City restructuring & insolvency practice knows about NFL receivers.  He also knows about the far more exciting receivers appointed under Federal Rule 66.  If you want to talk about either, or both, give him a call!

Even if you know the best receivers in the game, they cannot preserve your collateral if a court will not appoint them. In federal court, a receiver is usually only appointed when the plaintiff shows fraud or other threat to the collateral.  For creditors who have the Randy Moss (or the objectively better Jerry Rice) of receivers, and a provision allowing appointment in the loan documents, this may come as a shock. Currently, there is

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case Due to Lack of Corporate Authority to File (and provides a blueprint for veto powers over bankruptcy filings?)

On June 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion that held that Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 14, 2018).

Franchise Services of North America, Inc. (“FSNA”) was once one of the largest rental car companies in North America. Id. at 203.  In 2012, FSNA desired to purchase Advantage Rent-A-Car and enlisted an investment bank, Macquarie Capital (U.S.A.), Inc. (“Macquarie”), to assist. Macquarie created a fully-owned subsidiary, Boketo, LLC (“Boketo”), to make a $15 million investment in FSNA.

In exchange for the capital infusion, FSNA gave Boketo 100% of its preferred stock in the form of a convertible preferred equity instrument.

Reverse Mortgage Update: New York Law Mandates New Foreclosure Notices and Certificate of Merit

Editors’ Note:  While this post is not a per se bankruptcy issue, matters on consumer financial services are always in the curtilage of bankruptcy and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  Our BCLP consumer financial services colleague Cathy Welker is an expert in this area, advising banks, servicers, and other financial institutions on the Byzantine regulatory world they face, not only in New York where she practices but also at the federal level.  Likewise, BCLP’s Dallas office enjoys the benefits of Greg Sachnik, a former senior banking executive deep in the front lines of TILA, RESPA, deceptive trade practices, wrongful foreclosure, and fair debt collection.  We appreciate seeing this update from them, especially as reverse mortgage issues grow exponentially – according to one study, reverse mortgage foreclosures increased by over 600 percent in recent years.  So we are pleased to re-publish it here, and for you to read

Clear Error They Say! Supreme Court Opines On Standard Of Review For Determining Non-Statutory Insider Status

Pictured:  Reno Nevada’s The Villages at Lakeridge, a great investment for non-statutory insiders, or for anyone else!!

 

Last April, we updated you that the Supreme Court had granted review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our most recent post is here.

On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court held a clear-error standard of review should apply to a review of a determination of non-statutory insider status. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, No. 15-1509, ___ S. Ct. ___2018 WL 1143822, at *2 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2018).

As a refresher, in Village at Lakeridge, in exchange for $5,000, an insider (Bartlett) transferred a $2.76 million claim against the debtor to an individual (Rabkin) who was not a statutory insider. 

Bankruptcy Court Reluctantly Allows Creditor To Shuck “Lil’ Sweet Pea” Accounts

Any first-year law student could attest that understanding what the law is can be a difficult task, in part because the law is not always applied consistently by courts.  This problem gives rise to a maxim law professors often invoke (sometimes citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a proponent of this maxim) when questioned about the law’s occasional incoherence: “hard cases make bad law.”[1]  The idea is that courts are sometimes tempted to skirt the proper application of the law when the result seems harsh or unfair.  Typically, this happens when a court is faced with a particularly sympathetic party who happens to be on the wrong side of the dispute.  Although the court’s desire to avoid a harsh outcome is laudable, if the court allows this desire to distort its interpretation of the law it allows other (often less sympathetic) parties to avoid proper application of the law

In Case You Missed It – PACA Trust Rights in Bankruptcy are Just Plain Old Secured Claims

Happy 2018!  We at The Bankruptcy Cave have been itching to write about the Cherry Growers Chapter 11 case – which really is ground-breaking – but the holidays, life, and yes, work for clients too, all just got in the way.  But with each passing week, the case stayed on our minds.  So now that time permits, here is the writeup – and see below for the remarkable significance of the case.

In re Cherry Growers (now reported at 576 B.R. 569, Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2017), is a garden-variety produce-related bankruptcy case.  (Ha ha, “garden-variety” produce, get it?)  The Debtor bought produce and sold it to others, in addition to conducting other food distribution activities.  When the Debtor filed for bankruptcy, there was the typical push-and-pull between a lender secured by the Debtor’s inventory and a/r, and a supplier claiming a trust interest in those same assets, protected by the

Second Circuit: Market Rate Preferred Over Formula Rate For Purposes of Secured Creditor Cramdown in Chapter 11 Issues

Courts and professionals have wrestled for years with the appropriate approach to use in setting the interest rate when a debtor imposes a chapter 11 plan on a secured creditor and pays the creditor the value of its collateral through deferred payments under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Secured lenders gained a major victory on October 20, 2017, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a market rate of interest is preferred to a so-called “formula approach” in chapter 11, when an efficient market exists.  In re MPM Silicones (Momentive), LLC, 2017 WL 4700314 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2017).

In Momentive, the bankruptcy court categorically dismissed expert testimony presented by the lenders to demonstrate a market rate of 5-6+%.  Because the debtor had offered to cash out the lenders (and prepared to borrow the funds necessary to do it), there was direct evidence of the

Tenth Circuit Joins Missouri River to Divide Kansas City Over What Constitutes A Stay Violation

On February 27, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit joined a minority approach followed by District of Columbia Circuit:  failing to turn over property after demand is not a violation of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362.  WD Equipment v. Cowen (In re Cowen), No. 15-1413, — F.3d —-, 2017 WL 745596 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017), opinion here.

In Cowen, one secured creditor (WD Equipment) repossessed a vehicle in need of repairs for which the debtor (Cowen) could not pay.  Id. at *1.  Another secured creditor (Dring, the debtor’s father-in-law who is likely no longer welcome at Thanksgiving) repossessed a separate vehicle through the use of false pretenses, a can of mace, and five goons helpful colleagues:

“Mr. Dring lured Mr. Cowen under false pretenses to his place of business to repossess the Kenworth [truck].  Mr. Dring asked Mr. Cowen,

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.