Published on:

An asset based loan (“ABL”) is often the financing of choice for retail borrowers – and for good reason. In its simplest form, an ABL is a credit facility, usually in the form of a revolving line of credit, the availability of which is based exclusively on the value of a company’s “eligible” assets.  In the retail context such eligible assets are, for the most part, the company’s accounts receivable and inventory.  There are numerous advantages of an ABL over a traditional loan: an ABL is typically easier to obtain since it is based on a company’s assets and not cash flow; an ABL provides ready cash to support liquidity needs; an ABL often includes flexible borrowing and repayment terms and less restrictive financial covenants; and, particularly beneficial to retailers, an ABL commonly accounts for seasonality and allows more borrowing during periods of slower sales.  The borrower in the ABL is required to submit a “borrowing base certificate” on a monthly or even weekly basis, which details the current inventory levels (and accounts receivable), deducts certain amounts such as letters of credit, applies the applicable borrowing percentage (usually a percentage of the net orderly liquidation value (“NOLV”) of their inventory), and the result is the amount of cash available.  In addition to borrowing base certificates, the company is also subject to field examinations and inventory appraisals conducted at least once a year, if not more often, which determine the percentage applied to their borrowing base calculation.

iStock-184621155-1024x682When retail sales are booming, the company and the ABL seemingly work like a well-oiled machine: inventory is rapidly converted to cash, which is then used to pay the loan and fund purchases of new inventory, which, in turn, increases the amount the company can borrow at any time, commonly known as the “borrowing base”. A difficulty arises, however, when one of these necessary steps is obstructed – which is exacerbated in the bankruptcy context.  There seems to be an inherent conflict between the fluid nature of retail inventory flow and the fixed nature of a borrowing base.  It would certainly be maddening if American Express restricted my credit limit on a weekly or daily basis depending upon what was, or was not in my closet at any given time.

When the amount you can borrow depends upon your inventory levels, the retail company is incentivized to keep inventory levels high through new inventory purchases, which, in turn, often requires drawing cash from the credit facility.  This vicious circle illustrates what is colloquially referred to as the “ABL Trap”.  Even when it may be in the company’s best interest to reduce or hold off on inventory purchases, the selling of inventory without replenishment will lower its borrowing base and increase the risk of an overadvance – that is, when the amount borrowed exceeds the calculated availability.

Published on:

As a creditor, the news of a debtor who owes you a substantial sum of money filing bankruptcy is often the most alarming news you can learn—that is, until you seek advice of counsel and learn that payments the debtor made to you within 90-days prior to the bankruptcy will be the subject of a lawsuit and likely recoverable by the bankruptcy estate as a “preference.”  This is usually the point I offer soothing chamomile tea to the client.

Recovery of “preference” transfers in bankruptcy cases, though seemingly unfair to the individual creditor, serve an important role and offer a degree of protection to the creditors as a whole.  The primary elements of a preference transfer are relatively straightforward: a debtor who is insolvent, makes a payment or payments to a creditor, within 90 days[1] prior to the bankruptcy filing, to satisfy at least a portion of a pre-existing debt[2], and the creditor receives more than it would have had the debtor filed a chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy case.  Though the “don’t rob Peter to pay Paul” concept appears clear enough, the Ninth Circuit has recently illustrated how complicated the matter can become in In re Tenderloin Health[3] where the court addressed the often overlooked final element to a preference—the “greater amount” test.

As the Ninth Circuit noted, the “greater amount test … ‘requires the court to construct a hypothetical chapter 7 case and determine what the creditor would have received if the case had proceeded under chapter 7’ without the alleged preferential transfer.” Id. at *7.  This task of creating a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation grows ever more daunting as a case grows more complex, leading to uncertainty for a creditor client, especially when unresolved legal issues come up within the hypothetical bankruptcy.

Published on:

We asked some of our financial advisor colleagues to give us brief read outs on what they felt 2017 has in store for us now that we have gotten beyond the inauguration and into the first weeks of the Trump administration.  Their thoughts follow:

https://www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawyersblog.com/files/2017/02/2012-03-31-10.05.15-214x300.jpgWe have been seeing a lot of highly leveraged deals that impact the performance of the business. These deals are leading to reduced spending on capital expenditure, marketing and even experienced management.  Once new ownership is in place, these strictures prevent the company from operating with the same efficiency as in the past, let alone growing.  Another scenario we have been encountering is companies getting beyond the management ability of the founder as the company increases revenues from $25M to $50M and then to $100M or more. In either case, increasing interest rates will cause dislocation, because it does not take much to push these companies into a zone where they are showing significant financial stress.

That being said, we are also seeing that lenders are still being lenient because it’s really hard to get a full recovery in a liquidation, and appraisal firms always seem to be the first to hedge on their ability liquidate inventory en masse.  Also, my sense is that lenders don’t really want to sell their loans to exit a credit as it hurts their reputation.  Still, we are finding that lenders keep getting surprised with over-advances for many reasons.  When we are called in to assist in such situations, we focus our efforts on trying to fix the operating issues of the businesses and make a reasoned re-allocation of limited resources.

Published on:

Any property owner which has experienced the bankruptcy of a tenant is doubtless keenly aware of the limitation on damages which the Bankruptcy Code imposes on the landlord. A new decision by the Ninth Circuit bolsters the position of landlords in this long-running tussle.

Section 502(b)(6) Cap Refresher

Before getting to the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion, here is a quick review for those who have not confronted the issue recently: Bankruptcy Code section 502(b)(6) generally “caps” a landlord’s claim for “damages” against a bankrupt tenant when a lease is terminated before or during the bankruptcy case to (a) the greater of the next year of rent due, or 15% of all the remaining rent due up to 3 years of the remaining term, and (b) any unpaid rent owing as of the date of the bankruptcy, or the date the tenant lost possession of the premises if prior to bankruptcy.  Fairly or not, the policy justification for the cap is that large claims of landlords, which are by their nature long-term and hard to calculate, should not overwhelm the claims of other trade creditors.

Published on:

On December 1, 2016, something extraordinary happened. No, it was not president-elect Trump visiting another Carrier air conditioning factory in Indianapolis. It was an event that made no headlines and caused no stir.  The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure were silently amended to remove all references to “core” and “noncore” proceedings.

So what’s the big deal?

Besides eliminating one of the last tools I possessed to sound smarter than my non-bankruptcy colleagues, the change reflects the final chapter in a 34-year saga regarding bankruptcy court jurisdiction and the constitutional authority of bankruptcy judges.

Published on:

Inauguration is still about 2 months away, but it is not too early to begin thinking about what the Trump Administration will mean for commercial lawyers in general and bankruptcy lawyers in particular.

Bankruptcy Reform?

We are not hearing anything about a push for bankruptcy reform as part of the new administration’s agenda. Two potential exceptions are the fate of the proposed Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2016, H.R. 2947, 114th Cong. (2016), which would add a new chapter to the Bankruptcy Code dealing with large financial institutions.  Another is the potential for the new administration to take a different position than the Obama administration on Czyzewski v Jevic Holding Corp., which is now pending before the United States Supreme Court.  To date, the Solicitor General has argued that the Third Circuit was wrong to affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the “structured settlement” which resolved that case.[i]  With so many other issues swirling about, it does not seem likely that bankruptcy reform per se is in the offing.  However, a number of other potential policies may impact bankruptcy practices.

Published on:

The additional “default interest” owed when a borrower defaults under a loan agreement is a technical but highly critical part of any lending arrangement. This important “default interest” was the subject of a recent Ninth Circuit decision in which the Circuit made a nearly 180 degree u-turn away from its prior precedent.  Earlier this month in a case called In re New Investments, Inc. the Ninth Circuit adopted a new rule which may significantly constrain the ability of distressed companies to reorganize by restructuring their debt.

In that case, two members of a three judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed a bankruptcy court’s decision, and ruled that the chapter 11 debtor could not cure a default under its loan agreement by paying only the contractual pre-default interest but instead must pay interest at the higher post-default rate. This ruling is contrary to the Circuit’s prior decision in In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc. 850 F. 2d 1138 (9th Cir. 1988), and represents a dramatic shift in the Bankruptcy Code’s balance of power away from debtors and towards secured creditors.  The decision makes it much more difficult for a debtor to cure a loan default as part of a plan of reorganization.

In 1988, in the Entz- White decision, the Ninth Circuit held that a debtor who proposes to cure a loan default through a plan of reorganization is entitled to avoid all consequences of the default including higher post-default interest rates.  At that time, the Court acknowledged that under the Bankruptcy Code, a plan of reorganization “shall provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, such as curing or waiving of any default.”  The Court recognized that there was no definition of “cure” in the Bankruptcy Code, and adopted the following definition, which had been used by the Second Circuit:

Published on:

In my blog article on August 9, I focused on some of the issues that licensors need to be aware of as they license IP rights, including the concept of allowing distributors to include “damages only” clauses in the distribution agreements.

The second issue that often arises in distribution agreements related to DVD distribution rights is that the producer/licensor grants to the distributor/licensee the right to distribute a movie in various media, including, but not limited to DVD. The distributor will often pay for the cost of manufacturing the DVDs and then have the first right to recover the cost of manufacturing out of the first sales of those DVDs.  Sometimes the producer/licensor will pay for the cost of manufacturing the DVDs.  In either instance, however what happens when a distributor files a bankruptcy and holds on to the DVDs, the cost for which may have already been recouped through prior sales or which have actually been paid for by the producer.

The “automatic stay” which comes into being on the filing of a bankruptcy by the distributor, precludes the producer from immediately recovering those DVDs, and a significant question arises whether or not those DVDs become “property of the distributor’s bankruptcy estate”.

Published on:

The Issue

There has been written a plethora of articles about Bankruptcy Code §365(n) regarding the rights of parties to license agreements when the licensor files a bankruptcy and rejects a license agreement. Generally, Code Section 365(n) allows the licensee to “accept” a rejection of a license agreement by the licensor or “reject” the rejection of a license agreement and retain its rights.

However, what has not been addressed, and what seems to be of frequent concern in recent years, are the issues that affect producer/licensors when their distributor/licensees file bankruptcy. We have seen these issues arise in a significant way in the recent bankruptcy filings by Relativity which filed in the Southern District of New York, and the more recent bankruptcy filing by Our Alchemy in the District of Delaware.

Published on:

An “Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors” (an “ABC”) is an alternative to bankruptcy available under California law—as well as the laws of other states.  An ABC is often a more cost-efficient alternative to filing a bankruptcy case, and ABCs are often employed by secured lenders when speed and flexibility are required in a sale of the assets of the entity and the tools available in a bankruptcy proceeding (such as the ability to reject leases or bind certain classes of creditors) are unnecessary.  An ABC continues to be a very important tool that is routinely employed to assist in the restructuring of Southern California businesses.

In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided that the assignee of an entity which had previously made a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors under Florida law could not file a bankruptcy case for the entity.  Ulrich v. Welt et al. (In re Nica Holdings, Inc.), —F.3d—, 2015 WL 9241140 (11th Cir. 2015).  The assignee, who had been accused of breach of fiduciary duty in his conduct of the assignment estate, sought to use the bankruptcy case to stop and then settle litigation by a creditor unhappy with the course of the assignment.

The 11th Circuit first made a couple of general observations regarding ABC’s, including that “[e]ntities may opt to use the ABC process because in their particular circumstance, it’s more flexible, fast, more private, and less supervised than bankruptcy.”  Id., 2015 WL 9241140 *6 (citation omitted).  The 11th Circuit also observed that, “ABCs and bankruptcies are alternative proceedings.  An entity deliberately chooses one or the other.”  Id.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated: