Creditors Remedies and Bankruptcy Outline, Study notes of Law

University of Florida (UF) Levin College of Law notes and outlines. Law school course outlines.

Typology: Study notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 02/20/2012

ealpert
ealpert 🇺🇸

4.5

(8)

32 documents

1 / 119

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
CHAPTER 2 F 0
E 0
State Law Debt Collection
A. Collection Remedies
A.1.Introduction to Judgment Collection
Creditor pursuing collection through court system; first step is to establish debt owed, could
involved complex trial, or more abbreviated UCC Article 3 suit for negotiable instrument or
default judgment might have been entered
a. Execution (33)
Judgment itself gives nothing, gives them no interest and no priority in any of the debtor’s
property or income, The judgment creditor remains an unsecured general creditor until execution
is obtained on the judgment, only improvement is that the claim has become liquidated and there is
no dispute as to its validity
Collection process begins with a writ, often called writ fi fa, or writ of attachment, writ orders
sheriff or marshal to look for non exempt property of a judgment debtor, to seize it, sell it and pay
proceeds the judgment creditor until paid in full, Writ is issued by court clerk and is delivered to
sheriff for EXECUTION
Usually climbs in pick up and looks, lawyer might go with to show, if too big it is tagged with a
notice, since real property can never be loaded into the pick up it is always seized by a posting
notice of seizure or sale or similar method, this entire process of seizure is called the LEVY, and
what the sheriff does to LEVY UPON the property, Whole process from writ issuance to seizure is
often called an EXECUTION
Once sheriff has levied upon piece of debtor’s property, the judgment creditor becomes JUDICIAL
LIEN CREDITOR as to that property, or LIEN CREDITOR, sheriff sells property and uses
proceeds of sale to pay levying judgment creditor in full, Remaining F 0
E 0
given back to judgment
debtor, unless subsequent judgment by creditor is levied while stored, Entry made in books
showing either full or partial satisfaction, if not enough sheriff continues looking for property
b. Turnover Orders (34)
Today, judgment debtors have property scattered all over the world, might even be in intangibles,
etc.
Texas Statute Example
The judgment debtor may be ordered to turn over property he possesses . . .
Risk of imprisonment for contempt if don’t comply
Considerable advantages
All have to do is get necessary info about asset, Typically allows for examination of debtor
under oath, so assets found, This remedy reintroduces the threat of incarceration into the debtor
creditor game, on narrow basis
OJ Case Study
A.1.
had to hand over his SUV and a piano to help pay for the 33. million dollar judgment to
the Goldman and Browns
c. Other Writs (36)
Variety of others can be used, many jurisdictions have “WRIT OF SEQUESTRATION” which
may be used in defined circumstances to seize and hold specific property of the debtor, often
property in which the creditor has a security interest
d. Judgment Liens by Recordation (36)
Nearly every state special recordation procedures make it possible to obtain a lien on debtor’s
property quickly and simply, don’t have to do full blown execution process
Usually involves real estate but in some jurisdictions can be on personal property as well,
judgment lien against real property obtained by a recording instrument is at the country land
records where deeds of sale and mortgage are filed, Thus hard to find buyers when selling if title is
clouded and can’t hide this asset or move it, When they can’t sell often will buck up and pay the $
voluntarily
e. Dormancy and Limitations (36)
Judgment that has not been subject of enforcement efforts for a long period of time faces disability
in two ways, DORMANCY and LIMITATIONS
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28
pf29
pf2a
pf2b
pf2c
pf2d
pf2e
pf2f
pf30
pf31
pf32
pf33
pf34
pf35
pf36
pf37
pf38
pf39
pf3a
pf3b
pf3c
pf3d
pf3e
pf3f
pf40
pf41
pf42
pf43
pf44
pf45
pf46
pf47
pf48
pf49
pf4a
pf4b
pf4c
pf4d
pf4e
pf4f
pf50
pf51
pf52
pf53
pf54
pf55
pf56
pf57
pf58
pf59
pf5a
pf5b
pf5c
pf5d
pf5e
pf5f
pf60
pf61
pf62
pf63
pf64

Partial preview of the text

Download Creditors Remedies and Bankruptcy Outline and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

CHAPTER 2 F 0E 0 State Law Debt Collection A. Collection Remedies A.1.Introduction to Judgment Collection

  • Creditor pursuing collection through court system; first step is to establish debt owed, could involved complex trial, or more abbreviated UCC Article 3 suit for negotiable instrument or default judgment might have been entered a. Execution (33)
  • Judgment itself gives nothing, gives them no interest and no priority in any of the debtor’s property or income, The judgment creditor remains an unsecured general creditor until execution is obtained on the judgment, only improvement is that the claim has become liquidated and there is no dispute as to its validity
  • Collection process begins with a writ, often called writ fi fa, or writ of attachment, writ orders sheriff or marshal to look for non exempt property of a judgment debtor, to seize it, sell it and pay proceeds the judgment creditor until paid in full, Writ is issued by court clerk and is delivered to sheriff for EXECUTION
  • (^) Usually climbs in pick up and looks, lawyer might go with to show, if too big it is tagged with a notice, since real property can never be loaded into the pick up it is always seized by a posting notice of seizure or sale or similar method, this entire process of seizure is called the LEVY, and what the sheriff does to LEVY UPON the property, Whole process from writ issuance to seizure is often called an EXECUTION
  • Once sheriff has levied upon piece of debtor’s property, the judgment creditor becomes JUDICIAL LIEN CREDITOR as to that property, or LIEN CREDITOR, sheriff sells property and uses proceeds of sale to pay levying judgment creditor in full, Remaining F 0E 0 given back to judgment debtor, unless subsequent judgment by creditor is levied while stored, Entry made in books showing either full or partial satisfaction, if not enough sheriff continues looking for property b. Turnover Orders (34)
  • (^) Today, judgment debtors have property scattered all over the world, might even be in intangibles, etc.
  • Texas Statute Example
  • The judgment debtor may be ordered to turn over property he possesses...
  • Risk of imprisonment for contempt if don’t comply
  • Considerable advantages
  • All have to do is get necessary info about asset, Typically allows for examination of debtor under oath, so assets found, This remedy reintroduces the threat of incarceration into the debtor creditor game, on narrow basis
  • OJ Case Study A.1.had to hand over his SUV and a piano to help pay for the 33. million dollar judgment to the Goldman and Browns c. Other Writs (36)
  • Variety of others can be used, many jurisdictions have “WRIT OF SEQUESTRATION” which may be used in defined circumstances to seize and hold specific property of the debtor, often property in which the creditor has a security interest d. Judgment Liens by Recordation (36)
  • Nearly every state special recordation procedures make it possible to obtain a lien on debtor’s property quickly and simply, don’t have to do full blown execution process
  • Usually involves real estate but in some jurisdictions can be on personal property as well, judgment lien against real property obtained by a recording instrument is at the country land records where deeds of sale and mortgage are filed, Thus hard to find buyers when selling if title is clouded and can’t hide this asset or move it, When they can’t sell often will buck up and pay the $ voluntarily e. Dormancy and Limitations (36)
  • Judgment that has not been subject of enforcement efforts for a long period of time faces disability in two ways, DORMANCY and LIMITATIONS
  • DORMANCY F 0E 0 judgment still exists but must be revived to be enforceable, LIMITATIONS F 0E 0if the statute of limitations period has expired its terminal unless new suit filed f. Debt Collection by the Federal Government (37)
  • For 200 years, federal government used these procedures, Wake of great saving and loan debacle we get “Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act”, Real point is uniformity, only applies to judgments in favor of the federal government g. Family Debts (37)
  • High divorce rates and the low marriage rate have left an increasing number of middle class Americans struggling financially, bankrupt men and women are far more likely to be divorced and then less likely to be remarried
  • Single mothers file for bankruptcy more than any other
  • Child support and alimony are among the most difficult debts to collect
  • Imprisonment has been retained as an enforcement tool for family support payments despite the fact that it has been abolished almost everywhere in the US for all other sorts of debt
  • States often exempt some or all wages from garnishment but provide for child support h. (^) Voluntary Liens (38)
  • Obtaining mortgages and security interests in the debtor’s property, many creditors make themselves secured creditors by obtaining voluntary liens from their debtors, if they can agree then the creditor has a legally enforceable lien without the assistance of court action, The property on which the debtor grants is called collateral, the home is collateral for a mortgage and the car for a car loan
  • Those who take security interests are called MORTGAGEES in case of real property lending and secured parties and secured creditors in the case of all other property
  • Distinguished from those without consensual liens called GENERAL CREDITORS or UNSECURED CREDITORS
  • (^) Must record to make sure other third parties are not affected, through RECORDATION
  • Some types of property notice is given when possession is taken
  • A consensual lien assures the creditor that if the debt is not paid, the lien holder may force the sale of collateral and use the proceeds to repay its outstanding loan, Consensual liens may be PURCHASE MONEY LIENS, those liens used to furnish the credit necessary for the purchase of collateral, called PMSIs, debtors may borrow money and give a lien on property they already own to secure their promises to pay, this is a non PMSI loan
  • In business transactions debtors frequently will gives a security interest in property they plan to acquire in the future
  • “all my equipment, current and after acquired” F 0E 0 automatically attaches
  • sometimes more than one creditor may take a consensual lien on property
  • (^) creditor with consensual lien often can seize collateral more quickly and cheaply than a judgment creditor that has to go through suit and execution
  • seizure
  • called FORECLOSURE with real estate
  • called REPOSSESSION in personal property
  • in some states a mortgagee must go to court for a decree of foreclosure, finding by court that mortgage is in default and sale of property in order
  • in all states detailed regulations govern notice of foreclosure that mortgagee must give, details conduct of sale, tile during which debtor may reclaim, etc.
  • Creditor with Security Interest has two ways
  • (^) The Article 9 creditor can seize the property without help from other SELF HELP REPOSSESSION
  • No fist fight, breach of peace, etc.
  • or offer to keep the property in satisfaction of the debt without sale RETAIN IN SATISFACTION
  • Additionally, the secured creditor has all the remedies of any other creditor, can sue on behalf of debt and get judgment and ask sheriff to seize

TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS THAT WILL AID IN COLLECTING A JUDGMENT

DEBT

  • Inadequacy of Legal Process A.4.Gerdeses contend that the Kennamers failed to establish that the property subject to the trial court’s turnover order could not be attached readily or levied on by ordinary legal process A.5.WHEN A CREDITOR PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT CORPORATE STOCK IS HELD IN THE HANDS OF THIRD PARTIES OUT OF STATE, THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE STOCK COULD NOT BE ATTACHED READILY A.a. This was a Mexican Entity, this could not be attached readily or levied on through ordinary legal process A.2.The Struggling among Creditors: Priorities A.a. Background
  • (^) Creditor wants to make sure that no slipups occur just as the creditor is about to get some $
  • What if there are many creditors?
  • General rule is that first in time, first in right
  • The first creditor to levy on a particular piece of property will have the right to be paid in full from the sale proceeds of that property before any other creditor gets even a single dollar from the sale
  • Example A.6.Debtor owes three creditors 10K each, has 15K in property A.b. First creditor to have priority under the state system F 0E 0gets his full 10k A.c. Second, gets the 5k A.d. Third, SOL
  • (^) Usually the creditors are one of three types A.7.secured creditors with consensual liens A.8.unsecured creditors who have gotten judgments A.9.tax creditors (sometimes have liens and sometimes do not)
  • key date for determining priority turns on who made some required legal move first A.e. different names, most generic is PERFECTION, that state of grace a creditor reaches when its interest in the debtor’s property will prevail over subsequent interests A.f. Judgment Creditors F 0E 0 Means EXECUTION A.g. Mortgages and Secured Lenders F 0E 0 FILING IN A PREDETERMINED PLACE OR OTHERWISE GIVING OTHERS NOTICE OF THE INTEREST A.h. Statutory Line Holders F 0E 0 WHATEVER THE STATUTE SAYS IS THE RULE
  • Unsecured Creditor versus Unsecured Creditor
  • The first to levy will win as to the property levied upon
  • (^) Levy is essential for perfection and priority, the date of the levy is not always the controlling date for determining priorities
  • Many states, priority depends on the date on which the judgment creditor initiated the execution process by delivering the writ to the sheriff
  • Some courts say that the judicial creditor gets an INCHOATE LIEN as of the priority date which becomes choate on the date of actual levy or seizure of the property and relates back to the earlier date
  • If never completed, never choate and no claim
  • Unsecured Judgment Creditor versus Secured Creditor
  • When a creditor obtains a consensual lien on the debtor’s property, then first to perfect wins
  • (^) With consensual lien the critical issue is what constitutes perfection for the secured creditor against the unsecured creditor with judgment
  • General Rule is Easy
  • Ordinarily, the SECURED CREDITOR or the MORTGAGEE perfects when it records its consensual lien according to the statutory prescription

A.10.if judgment creditor’s lien is later it loses A.11.if earlier, it wins

  • Credit Bureau of Broken Bow v. Moninger
    • Appeal from a ruling affirming a judgment entered by county court awarding the proceeds of a pickup to the Broken Bow State Bank
    • Turns on two issues A.12.whether the Bureau was in fact a lien creditor on July 7, 1978; and A.13.whether the Bureau was a lien creditor without knowledge of the Bank’s alleged security interest prior to the perfection of such interest by the Bank
    • Conclude that Bureau was a lien creditor A.14.seized in execution, therefore the Bureau became a lien creditor within the meaning of section 9-301, UCC, when the sheriff levied on the vehicle, a manual interference with chattels is not essential to a valid levy thereon, if it sufficient if the property is present and subject for the time to the control of the officer holding the write and that he express terms asserts his dominion over it by virtue of such writ A.15.deputy sheriff did all that was required by the laws of this state with regard to levying under a writ of execution, taking physical control relates to whether the officer can produce the property levied on
  • Follow up
    • Number of jurisdictions agree with Credit Bureau approach that it is generally not necessary for the sheriff to remove the goods in order to complete an effective levy, others require it
    • There is a caveat in a situation where no possession is required; the levied upon goods are left in the hands of the debtor for unreasonable period of time with consent of creditor then the lien is lost
    • (^) This is to avoid situations of fraud
    • Seizure does not end execution process A.16.does give the levying creditor a lien A.17.property then sold by sheriff, and then pay sheriff’s fee A.18.proceeds go to the judgment lien
  • Judgment Creditors and Secured Creditors versus Buyers
  • Party claiming interest might have just bought the property, usual rule is first in time, first in right
  • Measured by perfection, usually through a recording system
  • Example of Judgment Creditor versus Buyer A.19.A buys car on Monday, records on certificate of title, and B executes a judgment and levies on the car on Tuesday, Ann wins A.20.but if Ann buys after B’s levy she generally loses
  • Secured Creditors Rule, Secured Creditor versus Buyer
  • If A buys the debtor’s car on Monday and the secured creditor does not record security interest on car until Tuesday then A is okay
  • If secured creditor makes notation on Monday and A buys Tuesday, too bad
  • Puts premium on checking certificates*****
  • Unsecured Judgment Creditor and Secured Party versus the Trustee in Bankruptcy
  • Trustee in bankruptcy is most dangerous foe of the judgment creditor who has levied or the secured party with a consensual security interest or even a statutory line holder
  • Consensual and statutory creditors will face rigorous testing of the legal soundness of their priorities A.3.Discovery A.b. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the judgment creditor to conduct discovery concerning the debtor’s assets and affairs A.4.Pre Judgment Remedies A.c. Pre judgment protection for defendant debtors now falls into two categories
    1. traditional protection under state law by means of special requirements that a creditor must satisfy before being able to get a remedy prior to obtaining a judgment
  • Yes
  • Rule:
  • When extraordinary circumstances justify relief a court may set aside a default judgment
  • Reasoning:
  • (^) B was a defaulting garnishee; court has held that more liberality should be shown in setting aside a judgment against a defaulting garnishee than in setting aside judgment against defaulting defendant
  • He seems to be a disinterested party
  • Under Arizona law a judgment can be entered against a defaulting garnishee for the full amount of the judgment against the defendant, defaulting garnishee often can become liable for higher amount than debt owed to defendant
  • Should have also considered the confusing nature of the entire proceedings, the parties named and the wording of the summons, didn’t say when to answer or where and when to appear
  • Should have also considered B’s physical and mental condition in November of 1975
  • (^) Meritorious Defense?
  • B claims also he had no control; it was in escrow, etc.
  • These facts if proved at trial would constitute a meritorious defense A.j. Restrictions on Wage Garnishment
  • General
  • If garnishing judgment creditor could seize the entire salary or wages, family might crumble
  • Debtor might strike bad bargains and accept higher interest rates
  • SC discussed this is Sniadach v. Family Finance
  • Says it’s an inhumane doctrine, saddled poor ignorant person who is trapped in credit nightmare, end up paying double, etc., also collection fees incorporated, often sign new K for payment schedule
  • Response F 0E 0congress in the Consumer Credit Protection Act restricted the access of all creditors to the wages of any debtor, there was such variation among states, some ban all together and others no rules (except Child Support and Alimony), federal garnishment restrictions act as floor, creating minimal protections
  • Commonwealth Edison v. Denson
  • Facts
  • Com Ed brought action to recover monies from Denison, circuit court entered judgment in favor of Com Ed and against Denson, summons issued for wage deduction in amount of debt outstanding, Com Ed served on employer Caterpillar, Caterpillar responded and gave a check for 139 bucks but declined to deduct the full 15% of D’s earnings, because already withholding 60 bucks for previous support order
  • Caterpillar says that under Illinois law no garnishment is allowed which would exceed the lesser of 15% of GE or amount by which weekly disposable earnings exceed 30 times minimum wage
  • Rule
  • When garnishments are sought only be judgment creditors, no more than the lesser of 25% of disposable earnings, or 15% of gross earnings, or the amount by which disposable earnings exceed 30 times the Federal Minimum wage may be withheld for that purpose
  • Reasoning
  • Supremacy Clause; so Consumer Credit Protection Act, CCPA, pre empts state law insofar as it would permit recovery in excess of 25% of an individual’s disposable earnings
  • Federal Act does not seek to establish any order of priority among garnishments, so we use Illinois law, so use first in time first in right
  • When garnishments are sought only be judgment creditors, no more than the lesser of 25% of disposable earnings, or 15% of gross earnings, or the amount by which disposable earnings exceed 30 times the Federal Minimum wage may be withheld for that purpose; when garnishments are sought only to support orders, as much as 65% of disposable earnings may be withheld for that purpose
  • When both sought less clear; but we find no basis for plaintiffs argument

A.21.we look to 15 USC Sec 1673, Secretary of Labor said, if 25%... (page 61) A.i. if 25% or more of an individuals disposable earnings were withheld pursuant to a garnishment for support, and the support garnishment has priority in accordance with State law, the CCPA does not permit the withholding of any additional amounts...

  • (^) garnishee may defend its action by arguing that no obligation is owed to the judgment debtor or that any obligation owed is offset by obligation of the judgment debtor to garnishee
  • Bank accounts cause problems
    • Law regards the account as a debt the bank owes the depositor, so garnishment is way to reach it, but often have multiple accounts, customer becomes creditor for deposit account and debtor on loan accounts, bank often will offer the judgment creditor satisfaction if there is a setoff for the bank A.k. Creative Garnishment
  • Network Solution versus Umbro
  • Whether the contractual right to use an internet domain name can be garnished
  • (^) We apply tradition legal principles to a new avenue of commerce and conclude that such a contractual right is the product of a contract for services and is not subject to garnishment
  • Facts and Analysis
  • Umbro won against a Canadian corporation for domain name poaching, named Network Solutions as garnishee and sought to garnish 38 internet domain names that the defendant has registered with them
  • Garnishment in Virginia A.22.judgment creditor can enforce a judgment for money by requesting the clerk of the court where the judgment was rendered to issue a writ of fieri facias and then by delivering that write to the proper person of the court for execution A.23.a judgment creditor can institute a garnishment proceedings if there is a liability on a third person to the judgment debtor A.j. Liability means legal obligation, enforceable by civil remedy, a financial or pecuniary obligation or a debt which is amount that is owed.
  • Conclude that a domain name registration is the product of a contract for services between the registrant and registrant, a contract for services is not a liability as that term is used, and hence is not subject to garnishment
  • Conclusion
  • A garnishment summons may be issued with respect to a liability on any person other than the judgment debtor
  • (^) Ordinarily the only adjudicable issue is whether the garnishee is liable to the judgment debtor and if so, what amount is due A.7. Problem Set 3 (Page 70) B. Fraudulent Conveyances and Shielding Debtor Assets A.8. Origins of Fraudulent Conveyance Law A.l. Twynes Case
  • It has been the accepted law ever since Twyne's Case, 3 Coke, 80, that good faith as well as a valuable consideration is necessary to support a conveyance as against creditors. In that case, Pierce, being indebted to Twyne in 400, was [155 U.S. 631, 639] sued by a third party for 200. Pending such suit he conveyed all his property to Twyne, in consideration of his debt, but continued in possession, sold certain sheep, and set his mark on others. It was resolved to be a fraudulent gift, though the deed declared that it was made bona fide. Most of the cases illustrative of this doctrine, however, have been, like that of Twyne, wherein a debtor, knowing that an execution was to be taken out against him, had sold his property to a vendee having knowledge of the facts, for the express purpose of avoiding a levy, or receiving a consideration which could not be reached by execution. In such cases the fact that he receives a good consideration will not validate the transaction, unless, at least, the creditor has obtained the benefit of the consideration. A like principle applies where a mortgage is given and withheld from record in order to give the mortgagor a fictitious credit.
  • Where it is established by clear and convincing evidence that a transfer of property was made that renders a judgment debtor insolvent this is fraudulent under §273, UFTA §§4(a)(2),
  • Reasoning
  • Burden of proof to establish that a debtor’s conveyance was made without fair consideration is on the creditor, however, where the evidentiary facts as to the nature and value of the consideration are within the transferee’s control, the burden of coming forward with evidence on the fairness of consideration shifts to the transferee
  • Intrafamily = heavier burden
  • While an antecedent debt may provide fair consideration for a conveyance of property, it must be in an amount not disproportionately small as compared to the value of the property
  • In sum, the evidence presented on the transfer of bonds from N to D established at most a bailment of indeterminate size, and conclude no antecedent debt owed by D to N
  • So R’s conveyance was made without fair consideration, thus is it made D insolvent within meaning of statute, then violate 273- 5(a)
  • (^) Insolvent A.24.a person is insolvent when the present fair salable value of his assets is less than the amount that will be required to pay his probable liability on his existing debt as they become absolute and mature
  • when a transfer is made without consideration, the burden of going forward with proof of solvency is on the defendant, conclude that D was insolvent at time of conveyance
  • D tried to say solvent because of three properties
  • Real property in south Carolina, securities account at Advest, and AR at Rhoades
  • The SC Property
  • Supposedly valued at 700k, but this is under cut A.25.once valued at much less, appraisal at 212.5, real estate agent’s limited experience
  • Conclude that D’s testimony regarding his alleged solvency failed to establish that at the time D transferred the Putnam County property to his sister he had assets whose aggregate fair, salable value was equivalent to the judgment about to be entered against him of 1,519,
  • Thus fraudulent under §273 (see UFTA §§4(a)(2),5)
  • Now Section 276
  • Every conveyance made, with actual intent, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent...
  • Burden of proof to establish “actual intent: is on the creditor who seeks to set aside the conveyance and he must do so by clear and convincing evidence
  • (^) Actual is hard to prove by direct proof, but can be established by inference from the circumstances surrounding the fraudulent act A.26.Factors A.k. 1) a close relationship among the parties to the transaction A.l. 2) secrecy and haste of the sale A.m. 3) inadequacy of consideration A.n. 4) transferor’s knowledge of the creditor’s claim and his own inability to pay it A.27.Conclude that the conveyance of the property was done with actual intent to defraud AGS, and that N knew of this intent, by clear and convincing evidence
  • All the classic indicia
  • (^) They are close family and law partners
  • Made in secret, didn’t notify counsel
  • Timing of the transaction
  • Inadequacy of consideration involved A.10. Leveraged Buyouts (79) A.o. General
  • A leveraged buyout (or LBO , or highly-leveraged transaction (HLT), or "bootstrap" transaction) occurs when a financial sponsor acquires a controlling interest in a company's equity and where a significant percentage of the purchase price is financed through leverage (borrowing). The assets of the acquired company are used as collateral for the borrowed capital, sometimes with assets of

the acquiring company. The bonds or other paper issued for leveraged buyouts are commonly considered not to be investment grade because of the significant risks involved.

  • Most controversial aspect of contemporary fraudulent conveyance law is its application to leveraged buyouts, without LBOs many marginal corporate takeovers could not be financed
  • (^) Essence of LBO financing is that the assets of the corporation being acquired are used to secure the purchase price paid for those assets
  • Current equity holders paid in cash, and financer takes security interest in virtually all of the company’s assets, not just stock, or old equity holders may finance the operation by taking back a security interest, called seller financing
  • This case arises in bankruptcy under a section that permits the trustee or the debtor to stand in the shoes of a creditor
  • Focus on how judge applied substantive element of the UFTA A.p. In Re Bay Plastics
  • Facts
  • (^) Debtor brought adversary proceeding against the selling shareholders of a leveraged buyout t orecover funds that they received in the buyout transaction
  • Defendants Younger, Smith and Dodson, the selling shareholders, formed debtor bay plastics, inc, in 1979 to manufacture PVC pipe for water well casings and turf irrigation
  • A. The Buyout
  • Selling shareholders sold their bay plastics stock to Milhouse for 3.5 million in cahs plus 1. million in deferred payments
  • Milhouse did not acquire stock directly, it had its subsidiary Nicole Plastics form BPI to take over the ownership of the stocks
  • Difficulty in the financing A.28.Milhous put no money of its own down A.29.caused Bay Plastics to borrow approximately 3.95 million from defendant BT Commercial Corp and then caused Bay Plastics to direct that 3.5 million of the loan be disbursed to BPI A.30.BPI direct that the 3.5 million be paid directly to the selling shareholders A.31.As security for the 3.95 million loan BT received a first priority security interest in all assets of Bay Plastics A.32.BT has thus received all the proceeds of debtor’s assets in this case A.33.financing also provided a revolving credit facility for working capital in addition to the payment for the LBO A.34.selling shareholders weren’t in dark about financing A.35.the industry did not know about the LBO character of the transaction, Shintech, a creditor at the time did not learn until 10 months later
  • B. The Shintech Debt
  • Bay plastics entered into a requirements contract with Shintech 3 months before the LBO
  • Bay plastics granted a security interest in all of the assets
  • Arranged a new deal and persuaded them of Milhous’ good credit, gave up their security interest
  • Impact on balance sheet was tremendous A.36.approximately 7 million in assets and liabilities of about 9 million A.37.2.26 million listed as good will A.38.Bay plastics unable to make it and filed for bankruptcy
  • Issue
  • Whether the LBO arrangement entered into by Bay Plastics was a Fraudulent Conveyance in violation of the UFTA
  • Holding
  • The transaction may be avoided as a constructive fraudulent transfer under the California Version of the UFTA, on which the debtor relies pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §544(b), and that in consequence the debtor is entitled to recover against he selling shareholders

B.vii. Bay Plastics received no reasonably equivalent value for the security interest in all of its assets that it gave to BT in exchange for BT’s funding their stock sale B.viii. Not reasonably equivalent, 3.95 million loan less the 3.5 million to shareholders, 450 grand is not same as 3.95 million obligation

  • THREE F 0E 0 Insolvency of the Debtor
    • Insolvency as defined in California Civil Code, a debtor is insolvent if, at fair valuations, the sum of the debtor’s debts is greater than all of the debtor’s assets
    • These statutes adopt the balance sheet test for insolvency, a debtor is insolvent if liabilities exceed the assets
    • Based on FAIR VALUATION, differs from balance sheet where usually carried at historical cost
    • Balance sheet may also have intangibles, goodwill cannot be included
    • Goodwill has no liquidation or going concern value
    • Goodwill represents the excess on the purchase price over the net value of the other assets purchasd
    • Nominally, Bay plastics looked solvent after the LBO, this was from addition of 2.26 million in goodwill
    • This downward adjustment left Bay Plastics with a negative net worth of approximately 2 million
    • This is the exact type of transaction that poses the extreme risk of an LBO
  • FOUR F 0E 0Attack by a Pre Transaction Creditor A.48.owned more than 99% of the unsecured debt A.49.held guaranties from each of the selling shareholders A.50.First, argue that account was current at time A.51.Second, said that Shintech had opportunity to ask question A.52.Third, says this isn’t pre-transaction claim
  • A. Shintech as Creditor A.53.court finds that Shintech is a pre transaction creditor of Bay Plastics even if the account was current A.54.Shintech was in a massive contract with Bay Plastics for all of its requirements of PVC A.55.Shintech’s K rights under its requirements contract to provide PVC were certainly not valueless even if the payments were current on the day after the LBO A.q. Had they repudiated, they would have owed massive damages A.56.Court holds that this made Shintech a creditor of Bay Plastics at that time
  • B. Investigation of the Transaction A.57.Second, Shareholders argue that Shintech, the largest supplier of PVC resin in the industry, had every opportunity to investigate the nature of the LBO transaction A.58.Shintech did change its position at the time of the transaction, in giving up its security and its guaranties A.59.However, the LBO feature of the transaction was hidden from it
  • C. Application of Fraudulent Transfer Law to LBOs A.60.court find it appropriate to apply fraudulent transfer law to an LBO A.61.LBO is different in character and degree from ordinary business and investment transactions A.62.not routine A.63.the LBO reduces the availability of unencumbered assets, the buyout depletes estate available to pay creditor’s claims A.r. existing unsecured creditors are vulnerable in an LBO A.s. from their perspective a pledge of the company’s assets as collateral to finance the purchase of the company reduces the assets to which they can look for repayment A.64.shifts most of the risk of loss to other creditors of the corporation A.65.from a creditor’s point of view an LBO is indistinguishable from a distribution or a gift to shareholders

A.66.if the value of the security interest given by the corporation does not exceed the shareholders’ equity as shown on the balance sheet, there is usually no substantial harm to creditors A.67.the vice of an LBO lies in the fact that selling shareholders are paid indirectly with assets from the corporation itself, rather than by the purchasers A.68.the shareholders are paid with a corporate dividend or distribution A.69.enables shareholders to liquidate their equity interests which are otherwise subordinate to general unsecured claims without first paying creditors, which a normal liquidation would require A.70.if the corporations cash flow is not sufficient to service the loan, the bank eventually proceeds to foreclose on the corporation’s assets and sells them at foreclosure prices

  • not apply fraudulent law to all LBO’s A.71.two kinds of LBOS ordinarily escape fraudulent transfer attack A.72.First, in a legitimate LBO, in which the assets mortgaged by a corporation to support an LBO do not exceed the net equity of the business, the transaction will not make the corporation insolvent, at least according to the balance sheet test A.t. if in addition it has sufficient projected cash flow to pay its debts as they come due, the cash flow solvency test is met also A.u. this leaves an LBO exposed to fraudulent transfer attack only if the margin of equity is too thin to support the corporation’s business A.73.Second, LBO that escapes fraudulent transfer attack, even though it leaves the subject corporation insolvent A.v. If the cash flow is sufficient to make the debt payments, the transaction also is unassailable A.w. (^) Ordinarily turns on two factors; B.ix. Degree of risk of default undertaken in the first instance, and the degree to which projected economic developments impacting the business are not overly optimistic B.x. These LBOs escape fraudulent transfer attack either because of good financial projections or because of good luck; either factor is sufficient
  • Courts view of the proper application of fraudulent transfer law to LBOs does not make the selling shareholders the guarantors of the success of the LBO
  • Legitimate LBO shifts the risk of failure off their shoulders A.74.as to subsequent creditors they should not be required to should the risk if the failure is caused by outside forces not reasonable foreseeable at the time of the transaction
  • However, an LBO that is leveraged beyond the net worth of the business is a gamble A.75.highly leveraged business is much less able to weather temporary financial storms, because debt demands are less flexible than equity interest A.76.risks of this gamble should rest on the shoulders of the shareholders, old and new, not those of the creditors; shareholders enjoy the benefits of the gamble if successful, and they should bear the burdens if it is not A.77.the application of fraudulent transfer law to LBOs shifts the risks of an LBO transaction from the creditors, who are not parties to the transaction, back to the old and new shareholders who bring about such transactions
  • (^) How long the shareholders should be exposed to the risk that an LBO will go bad? Usually go with the statute of limitations A.78.LBOS might be four to seven year time limit A.11. Problem Set 4 Page 91

C. State Collective Remedies pages 92- A.q. General

  • State collection system is based on the one at a time race of the diligent that effectively pits every creditor against both the debtor and every other creditor
  • State collection laws typically provide for two ways in which creditors can work in concert and debtors can resolve their disputes in a single blow
  • periodic struggles in the 19th^ century between mercantile and the debtor interests
  • (^) insolvency and bankruptcy were brought together for the first time in a series of short lived acts
  • The Bankruptcy Act of 1898 was amended a number of time in the following years but not revised extensively until 1930s, modern perspective its most important innovations were the adoption of new procedures for the reorganization of businesses and the payment of debt over time by financially troubled wage earners
  • federal courts had developed a form of business reorganization called equity receivership
  • served the function of permitting a financially troubled company, especially one with public stockholders and public debt, to reorganize its debt and to continue operations rather than liquidate
  • years that followed saw the Bankruptcy Act amended from time to time but only in small detail, in 1970 created a National Commission on Bankruptcy to draft a new law and it authorizes the SC to promulgate Bankruptcy Rules analogous to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures
  • correct various mistake, new code attacked by various creditor agencies, felt there should be stricter rules
  • Northern Pipelines Case A.i. Court held unconstitutional the Code’s grant of broad jurisdiction to the bankruptcy judges on the grounds that those judges were not appointed under and protected by the provisions of Article III of the Constitution A.ii. House wanted a clean bill creating Article III Bankruptcy Judges and the Senate wanted to divide jurisdiction, House ultimately agreed to the overall approach of the Senate
  • Chapter 12 F 0E 0 farmers
  • Tying of prices to the Consumer Price Index
  • (^) Important provision of the 1994 Amendments was the establishment of a new National Bankruptcy Review Commission
  • The 2005 Amendments contain the most far reaching changes since the adoption of the code
  • Overall, the amendments reflect the credit industry’s view that bankruptcy law needed to be rebalanced in favor of the creditor interest because it was too often abused by debtors, also decrease the discretion of judges and lawyers B. Bankruptcy Court Organization
  • The Marathon decision struck down the old allocation, according to the court, the bankruptcy judges should have been given either less power or lifetime Article III appointments, congress refused lifetime appointsments for bankruptcy judges
  • (^) Subject to the District’s Court’s discretion, the bankruptcy judges have jurisdiction over core proceedings in bankruptcy; their decision become final unless they are appealed to the district court, with regard to non core proceedings a bankruptcy judge can hear them only as a master who submits proposed findings to the distrct court, unless the parties involved consent to a binding decision by the bankruptcy judges
  • The bankruptcy judge’s decision is reviewed on a clearly erroneous standard
  • Code permits any circuit court to adopt special appellate procedures, alternatives to district court are called BAPs, Bankruptcy Appellate Panels
  • In 1994 amendments, Congress requires all circuits to do so unless certain adverse finding were made by the judges in a particular circuit
  • (^) Unwieldy jurisdictional compromise creatd by the 1984 amendmenmts had produced various difficulties and anomalies, which we will consider later in these materials
  • SC has never addressed the constitutionality of the scheme directly, but its general pronouncements on bankruptcy jurisdiction seemed to palce the whole system in fundamental jeopardy
  • SC promulgates the rules of Bankruptcy procedure
  • Unlike the pre code rules, the current rules must defer to any controlling provision of the code
  • It is worth noting specifically the treatment of disputes in the rules
  • Part VII of the Rules governs adversary proceedings which are defined in Rule 7001
  • Adversary proceedings are full blown federal lawsuits within the larger bankruptcy case, so they typically carry two caption, the In re bankruptcy one and the more familiar P v. D one C. Structure of the Bankruptcy Code
  • Divided into chapters
  • Chapter 1 is structural such as definitions, rules of construction, etc.
  • Chapter 7 F 0E 0 governs the classic straight bankruptcy liquidation for both consumers and businesses
  • Chapter 9 F 0E 0 special provisions for bankruptcy of municipality
  • Chapter 11 is the reorganization
  • Chapter 12 is specialized version of Chapter 13 governing reorganization for family farmers D. Consumer versus Business Bankruptcy
  • (^) Divides the course between consumer bankruptcy and business bankruptcy
  • Modern legal analysis has made the consumer commercial distinction important throughout commercial law
  • Early English bankruptcy law recognized the distinction and permitted bankruptcy to be employed only against traders
  • Not a sharp line, in a large empirical study of the bankruptcy has shown that many individuals who for bankruptcy do so after their small business has collapsed
  • The bankruptcy courts are filled each year with over a million ordinary, middle class Americans Chapter 4 Elements Common to Consumer Bankruptcies A. Background A.1. (^) the families in bankruptcy represent a broad cross section of the middle class A.2. average age is 43 A.3. great majority of the bankrupt debtors are overwhelmingly in debt A.4. The big three answers A.i. 1) job difficulties A.ii. 2) medical problems A.iii. 3) family breakups A.1. together these three account for 90% of filings A.5. Financial irresponsibility? A.iv. Many of the debtors bitterly concede they have been stupid with money A.v. (^) Equally clear that many credit issuers have deliberately taken big risks in lending to consumers A.vi. Countries with high average debt loads among the population generally and bankruptcy filings, high correlation between the two A.vii. With the effective abolition of usury laws, the industry is very profitable and has attracted huge amounts of investment from the capital markets, increasingly secured by pools of consumer debt (called securitization) B. Outline A.6. For both consumer and business F 0E 0 Chapter 7 is the liquidation chapter, the debtor gives up all non exempt assets, the Trustee in Bankruptcy sells these assets, and the proceeds are distributed pro rata to creditors A.7. benefits is that debtor receives discharge of pre existing debts A.8. (^) achieves the two classic objectives A.viii. Fair distribution of the debtor’s assets for the benefit of creditors and a fresh start for the debtor A.9. Payout Plan under chapter 13 F 0E 0 chapter 11 for Businesses A.ix. Keep all assets with promise to pay out debts over a period of time A.x. Payout approach has gained increasing importance in recent years A.xi. Permits debtor to keep assets, can also mean much higher returns for creditors C. Getting Started A.10. debtor files petition, basic request for bankruptcy relief, along with some key certifications A.11. Filing fee for Chapter 7 is 299, Bankruptcy Code provides a limited form of in forma pauperis, permitting anyone whose income is les than 150% of the official poverty line to request a fee waiver from the court A.12. debtors attorney usually has a clerk that takes a group of filings to the bankruptcy clerk, clerk takes the fees and date stamps A.13. at that moment the bankruptcy estate is created and an automatic stay of collections is in A.14. details can be excruciating requiring substantial documentation

D.i. Including a debtor’s contract right to future, contingent property D.j. The estate property is a question of federal law, the court must look to state law when deciding whether a debtor had a legal or equitable interest in the property when he field for bankruptcy D.k. (^) Bankruptcy court looked at the particulars of the plan and noted that when an employee receives a dividend language... said that because the employer had no discretion as to the amount and timing of the bonus that it was part of the estate property; misconstrued the significance of the above fact, employer may have no discretion over the amount of any bonus, both parties agree that employer had full discretion over whether the bonus was played D.l. Case squarely on point F 0E 0 Vogel v. Palmer D.i. Debtor received a bonus from his employer roughly six months after he filed his bankruptcy petition D.ii. Three salient facts that led Vogel court to conclude D.1. for debtor to receive the bonus, the employer had to employ him at time declared bonus D.2. (^) to be eligible for the bonus, the debtor had to satisfactorily perform his job D.3. payment of the bonus was solely at the employer’s discretion D.a. these three are all basically here D.m. Vogel and this case share the same dispositive characteristic: the employer, as of the date the debtor filed could have not paid D.n. Might be different if under Michigan law a worker had enforceable right in bonus dividends before payment D.o. Vogel isn’t binding but its reasoning is consistent with the well established principle that when post petition income is dependent upon the continued services fo the debtor subsequent to the petition the amounts do not constitute property of the estate D.p. The post petition services that a debtor need perform in order to trigger this rule are exceedingly slight D.q. Debtor here had to labor for his employment more than two months after date of filing to be eligible D.r. Trustee argues for appointment, because part is rooted in work done before... D.iii. First, apportionment would be contrary to the plain language of §541, dictates that only legal or equitable interest of the debtor as of commencement of the case D.iv. He had no legal or equitable interest D.v. Second, legislative history D.4. (^) not intended to expand the debtor’s right against others more than they exist at time of commencement of the case D.5. trustee can take no greater rights than the debtor himself had on the day of filing for bankruptcy A.xxii. Information on IS THIS PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE? CERTAIN KEY AREAS OF DISPUTE. A.12. FIRST F 0E 0 disputes about the inclusion of certain expectancies in property of the estate under 541 can be divided into three main categories D.s. First, Sharp v. Dery, involves legal interests that are not enforceable at the date of bankruptcy but may be enforceable at a future time D.t. Question is whether they are sufficiently matured and certain to be included in the estate. D.vi. Subsidiary point F 0E 0 allocation of their value to past or future, when some value arises from services performed by debtor after bankruptcy A.13. SECOND ( dispute created by certain entitlements such as permits or licenses that are non transferable, which may or may not be property D.u. Distinction between property and mere license is same as the constitutional distinction between a right and privilege

D.v. When it can be bought and sold it will likely be property of the estate A.14. THIRD ( problems of restrictions on transferability imposed by K or by law D.w. debtor clearly owns valuable property but debtor may have not legal right to transfer D.x. (^) if such restrictions were valid in bankruptcy, then non transferable property could not pass to the bankruptcy estate D.y. such restrictions are generally not enforceable and Section 541(c)(1) makes may unenforceable D.vii. few key specific restrictions on alienation D.6. spendthrift exception, debtors are often able to keep retirement accounts out D.7. ERISA qualified, the federal law protects it, or else try again with state law A.xxiii. In Re Orkin A.15. (^) Facts D.z. Orkin was sole proprietor of real estate business, established a retirement account and put 271k in there, Under the terms of the plan debtor was the employee, employer and sole participant in the plan, filed for bankruptcy two years later, claimed the plan was not property of the estate under 541(c)(2) A.16. Issue D.aa. Whether the retirement plan of the sole proprietorship was exempt property under 541(c)(2). A.17. Holding D.bb. No A.18. (^) Rule D.cc. A retirement account held by a sole proprietor, that can be terminated by himself, is not excludable from bankruptcy proceedings. A.19. Reasoning D.dd. Applicability of 541(c)(2) D.viii. Section 541(c)(2) validates restrictions upon transfer of a debtor’s beneficial interest in a trust that are enforceable under applicable non bankruptcy law by excluding property from the estate D.ix. Presence of these anti alienation clauses would seem to qualify most retirement plans for 541(c)(2) exclusion if federal law was included within the term applicable non bankruptcy law D.x. Patterson Case D.8. held that applicable non bankruptcy law under 541(c)(2) includes both state spendthrift and federal law including ERISA D.9. result of Patterson is that employee retirement benefits under ERISA qualified pension plans are excluded from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate, thus the question is whether debtor’s plan is ERISA qualified. D.ee. ERISA D.xi. Congress enacted ERISA to regulate the operations of employee benefit plans D.xii. (^) Statute imposes various requirements, must include provision prohibiting assignment and alienation of pension benefits D.xiii. Best view that plan is ERISA qualified only when it complies with the requirements of both ERISA and the IRC D.xiv. Trustee asserts two challenges to debtor’s claim D.10. contends that the debtor is employer, employee and sole participant and cannot be an employee as that term is used under ERISA D.11. argues that the Plan’s anti alienation clause is unenforceable under IRC 401(a)(13) D.xv. Kwatcher v. Mass Service