The Financially Troubled Company

Showing: 43 - 49 of 55 Articles
Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Delaware Supreme Court Addresses, For The First Time, Whether Creditors Can Sue Directors For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty When The Corporation Is Insolvent Or In The Zone Of Insolvency

Almost sixteen years ago, the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision in Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland, N.V. v. Pathe Communications Corp., 1991 WL 277613 (Del. Ch. 1991), helped introduce the terms "vicinity of insolvency" and "zone of insolvency" into the legal and business lexicon. Since then, the Chancery Court issued a number of decisions on the question of whether creditors can sue directors of insolvent corporations, or those in the zone of insolvency, for breach of fiduciary duty. In the intervening years, however, the Delaware Supreme Court had never spoken on the issue.

The Chancery Court Limits Direct Creditor Claims. As reported in this earlier post, last September the Chancery Court issued a decision in North American Catholic Educational Programming, Inc. v. Gheewalla, et al., 2006 WL 2588971 (Del. Ch. Sept. 1, 2006) (Chancery Court opinion available here), holding that creditors could not bring a direct action for breach of fiduciary duty against directors of a corporation in the zone of insolvency. This case gave the Delaware Supreme Court the opportunity to issue a definitive ruling on the subject.

The Delaware Supreme Court Affirms. On Friday, May 18, 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court finally ruled on this important question. The Court’s 24-page opinion in North American Catholic Educational Programming, Inc. v. Gheewalla, et al. affirmed the Chancery Court’s decision and made three key rulings:

  • When the corporation is in the zone of insolvency, creditors may not bring a direct action against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty;
  • When the corporation is in fact insolvent, creditors have standing to maintain derivative claims against directors on behalf of the corporation for breaches of fiduciary duties; and
  • Even when the corporation is insolvent, creditors have no right to assert direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors.

The Supreme Court’s Zone Of Insolvency Analysis. The Delaware Supreme Court first rejected the creditor’s argument that it should be permitted to bring a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors when the corporation was in the zone of insolvency:

It is well established that the directors owe their fiduciary obligations to the corporation and its shareholders. While shareholders rely on directors acting as fiduciaries to protect their interests, creditors are afforded protection through contractual agreements, fraud and fraudulent conveyance law, implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, bankruptcy law, general commercial law and other sources of creditor rights. Delaware courts have traditionally been reluctant to expand existing fiduciary duties. Accordingly, ‘the general rule is that directors do not owe creditors duties beyond the relevant contractual terms.’

(Footnotes omitted.)

The Supreme Court next commented that although it had never addressed the issue of whether creditors have the right to sue directors in the zone of insolvency, the subject had been discussed in several Chancery Court decisions and in many scholarly articles. Among the Chancery Court decisions cited were the Production Resources decision (see earlier post on that decision), which the Supreme Court quoted at length, and the Trenwick America decision (discussed here and here), currently on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Concluding that the creditor could not state a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the Supreme Court held:

In this case, the need for providing directors with definitive guidance compels us to hold that no direct claim for breach of fiduciary duties may be asserted by the creditors of a solvent corporation that is operating in the zone of insolvency. When a solvent corporation is navigating in the zone of insolvency, the focus for Delaware directors does not change: directors must continue to discharge their fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders by exercising their business judgment in the best interests of the corporation for the benefit of its shareholder owners.

(Footnotes omitted.)

The Supreme Court’s Views When The Corporation Is Insolvent. The Delaware Supreme Court next tackled the issue of whether a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty could be brought against directors when the corporation crossed from the zone of insolvency into actual insolvency:

It is well settled that directors owe fiduciary duties to the corporation. When a corporation is solvent, those duties may be enforced by its shareholders, who have standing to bring derivative actions on behalf of the corporation because they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the corporation’s growth and increased value. When a corporation is insolvent, however, its creditors take the place of the shareholders as the residual beneficiaries of any increase in value.

Consequently, the creditors of an insolvent corporation have standing to maintain derivative claims against directors on behalf of the corporation for breaches of fiduciary duties. The corporation’s insolvency “makes the creditors the principal constituency injured by any fiduciary breaches that diminish the firm’s value.” Therefore, equitable considerations give creditors standing to pursue derivative claims against the directors of an insolvent corporation. Individual creditors of an insolvent corporation have the same incentive to pursue valid derivative claims on its behalf that shareholders have when the corporation is solvent.

(Footnotes omitted; emphasis in original.) Later, the Court stated both its holding on this issue and the reasons for it:

Recognizing that directors of an insolvent corporation owe direct fiduciary duties to creditors, would create uncertainty for directors who have a fiduciary duty to exercise their business judgment in the best interest of the insolvent corporation. To recognize a new right for creditors to bring direct fiduciary claims against those directors would create a conflict between those directors’ duty to maximize the value of the insolvent corporation for the benefit of all those having an interest in it, and the newly recognized direct fiduciary duty to individual creditors. Directors of insolvent corporations must retain the freedom to engage in vigorous, good faith negotiations with individual creditors for the benefit of the corporation. Accordingly, we hold that individual creditors of an insolvent corporation have no right to assert direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty against corporate directors. Creditors may nonetheless protect their interest by bringing derivative claims on behalf of the insolvent corporation or any other direct nonfiduciary claim, as discussed earlier in this opinion, that may be available for individual creditors.

(Footnotes omitted; emphasis in original.) 

Fellow Bloggers Weigh In. Given the decision’s importance, several legal bloggers reported on it almost immediately. These include Scott Riddle at the Georgia Bankruptcy Law Blog, Francis Pileggi at the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, and three law professors whose articles the Delaware Supreme Court cited in the opinion: Professor Stephen Bainbridge at ProfessorBainbridge.com, Professor Larry Ribstein at Ideoblog, and Professor Fred Tung at Conglomerate.

The Next Big Insolvency Case. The next major decision in the insolvency area should be the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in the Trenwick America case. In the Chancery Court, Vice Chancellor Strine held that no cause of action for deepening insolvency exists under Delaware law. The appeal was argued before the Delaware Supreme Court on March 14, 2007, and a decision could be handed down in the next month or two. The North American Catholic decision, with its approving quotes from and citations to other recent Chancery Court decisions in this area, raises the question whether the Delaware Supreme Court will again affirm the Chancery Court, this time in the Trenwick America case. Although it’s hard to tell, we may not have to wait much longer to find out. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Defending A Preference: Ninth Circuit Holds That Even First Time Transactions Can Be In The “Ordinary Course”

In a decision issued on April 3, 2007 in the In re: Ahaza Systems, Inc. case, the Ninth Circuit held that even first time transactions can qualify for the "ordinary course of business" defense to preferences. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s decision is available here.

The Bankruptcy Preference. As a quick refresher, preferences are payments or other transfers made in the 90 days prior to a bankruptcy filing, on account of antecedent or pre-existing debt, at a time when the debtor was insolvent, that allow the transferee (the preference defendant) to be "preferred" by recovering more than it would have had the transfer not been made and the defendant instead had simply filed a proof of claim for the amount involved. The 90-day reachback period is extended to a full year prior to the bankruptcy petition for insiders such as officers, directors, and affiliates.

Pre-BAPCPA Statute. The ordinary course of business defense, designed to protect parties who engage in normal transactions with a financially troubled business, is one of the most common defenses available to preference recipients. The Ninth Circuit examined it under the version of the preference statute, Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, as it existed before the 2005 amendments made in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (known as BAPCPA). This pre-BAPCPA statute, specifically Section 547(c)(2), provided that a trustee could not avoid a transfer as a preference

to the extent that such transfer was —

(A) in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee;

(B) made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee; and

(C) made according to ordinary business terms.

The Court’s focus was on subsection (A), the "debt" issue. Usually, parties have a series of contracts or purchase orders, as well as a payment history, that gives context to the ordinary course of business between them. In this case, however, the transaction that led to the allegedly preferential payments was their first one. The Court faced the question of whether a debt can be considered as having been incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the preference defendant when there had been no other past transactions to which it could be compared.

Court Looks To Past Practices With Other Similar Parties. The Court’s answer was yes, holding that a preference defendant can indeed assert the ordinary course of business defense involving a debt created by the first contract or transaction between the parties. However, the Ninth Circuit articulated a special rule when a "first time" debt is involved:

[W]hen we have no past debt between the parties with which to compare the challenged one, the instant debt should be compared to the debt agreements into which we would expect the debtor and creditor to enter as part of their ordinary business operations. Consistent with Food Catering [971 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1982)], however, this analysis should be as specific to the actual parties as possible. Thus, we hold that to fulfill § 547(c)(2)(A), a first-time debt must be ordinary in relation to this debtor’s and this creditor’s past practices when dealing with other, similarly situated parties. Only if a party has never engaged in similar transactions would we consider more generally whether the debt is similar to what we would expect of similarly situated parties, where the debtor is not sliding into bankruptcy.

Both Original And Restructured Agreements Are Relevant. On a related point, since the first transaction here was an agreement that was later restructured to give the debtor more time to pay, the Ninth Circuit also held that both the original and revised agreement should be evaluated for ordinariness.

Ruling Still Important Under BAPCPA. BAPCPA revised the ordinary course of business defense so that Section 547(c)(2) now provides that a payment or other transfer cannot be avoided

to the extent that such transfer was in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee, and such transfer was—

(A) made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee; or

(B) made according to ordinary business terms.

Although different, the current statute still makes the issue decided in the In re: Ahaza Systems case, whether the debt was incurred in the ordinary course of business, a requirement. The major change is that the statute now allows the defense to be established by additionally showing that payments were made either (A) in the ordinary course of business of the parties or (B) according to ordinary business terms, rather than both as under the pre-BAPCPA version.

How Hard To Meet? Having established the new test, the Court then reversed the granting of summary judgment to the defendant because it found the proof presented was inadequate. This suggests that although the Ninth Circuit will permit preference defendants to assert the ordinary course of business defense on first time transactions, some defendants may face a challenge in meeting that standard.

Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Report On The Delaware Supreme Court’s Recent Oral Argument In The Trenwick America Deepening Insolvency Case

One of the most important recent decisions by the Delaware Court of Chancery in the insolvency area was the August 10, 2006 opinion in the Trenwick America Litigation Trust case. As discussed at length in an earlier post, the Trenwick America decision by Vice Chancellor Strine (available here) squarely held that there was no cause of action for "deepening insolvency" under Delaware law. The Chancery Court’s opinion rejected it as a cause of action in no uncertain terms:

Delaware law does not recognize this catchy term as a cause of action, because catchy though the term may be, it does not express a coherent concept. Even when a firm is insolvent, its directors may, in the appropriate exercise of their business judgment, take action that might, if it does not pan out, result in the firm being painted in a deeper hue of red. The fact that the residual claimants of the firm at that time are creditors does not mean that the directors cannot choose to continue the firm’s operations in the hope that they can expand the inadequate pie such that the firm’s creditors get a greater recovery. By doing so, the directors do not become a guarantor of success.  Put simply, under Delaware law, ‘deepening insolvency’ is no more of a cause of action when a firm is insolvent than a cause of action for ‘shallowing profitability’ would be when a firm is solvent. Existing equitable causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and existing legal causes of action for fraud, fraudulent conveyance, and breach of contract are the appropriate means by which to challenge the actions of boards of insolvent corporations.

Delaware Supreme Court Hears Appeal. The significance of the Chancery Court decision makes it particularly interesting to follow the appeal in the case, now before the Delaware Supreme Court. The oral argument on the appeal, held on March 14, 2007 at the Widener University School of Law campus in Wilmington, may shed some light on how the Delaware Supreme Court will ultimately rule. Frank Reynolds of Andrews Publications prepared this news story on the oral argument, and the law school’s website also has an article, complete with slideshow, on the oral argument in Trenwick America and in a second case that day. To hear the Trenwick America oral argument for yourself, follow this link and download the audio recording from the Delaware Supreme Court’s website.

Focus At Oral Argument. Having listened to the recording (an entertaining addition to my iPod), it’s interesting to note that the deepening insolvency issue received only a few mentions during oral argument. Those came mainly during a discussion of the business judgment rule and whether existing contractual and statutory remedies sufficiently protect creditors. Instead, the parties and the Justices focused on the following issues during oral argument:

  • Whether the complaint sufficiently pled that the corporation was insolvent or in the zone of insolvency;
  • Whether the business judgment rule protected the directors in permitting the subsidiary corporation to incur guaranty and other obligations;
  • What fiduciary duty was owed and how it was allegedly breached;
  • Whether the zone of insolvency issue was critical to the plaintiff’s case; and
  • Whether the directors breached any fiduciary duties when following the parent corporation’s business plan for the subsidiary and the corporate group.

Reading The Tea Leaves. With the range of issues discussed at oral argument, it’s possible that the Delaware Supreme Court will render its decision in the Trenwick America case without considering the Chancery’s Court’s ruling that deepening insolvency does not exist as a cause of action under Delaware law. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Delaware Supreme Court could rule for his client without reaching the issue. Likewise, counsel for the defendants urged affirmance based on what Vice Chancellor Strine found to be insufficient pleading of insolvency, a lack of any fiduciary duty owed given the complaint’s allegations, and the application of the business judgment rule. Although not directly involving deepening insolvency, in response to a specific question from one of the Justices, defense counsel also argued that the Delaware Supreme Court should consider holding that directors do not owe fiduciary duties to creditors upon insolvency, leaving creditors to the existing protections and remedies otherwise available to them.

After an interesting oral argument, stay tuned.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

The New Section 503(b)(9) Administrative Claim: The Latest On What Courts And Debtors Have Been Doing

A couple of months ago I posted on the new "20 day goods" administrative claim enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). BAPCPA, which took effect in October 2005, added Section 503(b)(9) to the Bankruptcy Code giving vendors an administrative priority claim for "the value of any goods received by the debtor within 20 days before" the date the bankruptcy petition was filed, as long as "the goods have been sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of such debtor’s business." 

In my earlier post, I posed a number of unresolved questions about this new section and predicted that courts would soon start to address those issues. Well, in the past couple of months we have in fact seen decisions answering at least a few of the questions raised by Section 503(b)(9).

The First Court Decisions. In late December 2006, bankruptcy courts in the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued what appear to be the first two decisions on when and under what circumstances Section 503(b)(9) administrative claims must or should be paid. As explained below, in both decisions the bankruptcy court held that the administrative claimant was not necessarily entitled to payment prior to, in a Chapter 11 case, confirmation of a plan of reorganization.

  • In the first decision, issued December 21, 2006, Judge Kevin Gross of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied a creditor’s motion for payment of a Section 503(b)(9) administrative claim in the In re Global Home Products, LLC Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The court held that the timing of payment of administrative claims is left to the discretion of the court. In so doing the court quoted with approval from an article that described Section 503(b)(9) as a "rule of priority, rather than payment." The court relied on a non-Section 503(b)(9) decision for the three factors to assess when considering when an administrative claim should be paid, chiefly, (a) the prejudice to the debtor, (b) hardship to the claimant, and (c) potential detriment to other creditors. The court applied those factors and denied the creditor’s request for immediate payment.
  • In the second decision, issued a week later on December 28, 2006, Judge Eric Frank of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion for immediate payment of Section 503(b)(9) claims filed by several creditors in the In re Bookbinders’ Restaurant, Inc. Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Although the debtor agreed that the creditors were entitled to allowance of a "20 day goods" administrative claim, it opposed the immediate payment of those claims. The court held that the timing of payment was a matter of the court’s discretion but agreed to hold an evidentiary hearing to consider evidence to guide the exercise of that discretion.

A Few Early Take-Aways. In both of these decisions, the courts held that they have discretion to defer payment until the end of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, when a plan of reorganization is confirmed.

  • Creditors who can establish that failing to pay their Section 503(b)(9) claim would cause them hardship, but not prejudice the debtor or other creditors, may still be able to obtain immediate payment. As these cases show, however, creditors will find it challenging to meet that standard.
  • Interestingly, the Bookbinders court rejected what it called an "equal protection" argument by the creditors, who asserted that they should be paid immediately because vendors delivering goods to the debtor post-petition were being paid on their administrative claims. The court drew a distinction between the two claims, explaining that the creditors delivering goods post-petition were paid not under Section 503(b) but instead under Section 363(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. That latter section allows a debtor in possession or trustee to enter into post-petition ordinary course of business transactions, and to pay for them, without court approval.
  • Finally, DIP financing orders can impact the timing of paying Section 503(b)(9) claims. In some cases the DIP budget may not include funds to pay these claims and in others the DIP order may expressly prohibit their payment. Section 503(b)(9) creditors may want to review proposed DIP financing motions carefully with this in mind.

What Debtors Have Been Doing. In an attempt to exert a degree of control over Section 503(b)(9) claims, some debtors have filed motions seeking to establish procedures to handle these claims, not unlike the procedures used in past cases for reclamation claims. In the Seattle case of In re Brown & Cole Stores, LLC, for example, the debtor filed a motion for an order establishing procedures for Section 503(b)(9) claims. The court granted the motion and entered a Section 503(b)(9) procedures order which, among other things:

  • Required creditors to file Section 503(b)(9) claims by a special bar date;
  • Required the debtor to file a report evaluating such claims 21 days after the special bar date;
  • Gave creditors 15 days thereafter to file a reply to the debtor’s position;
  • Made the debtor’s position binding in the event a creditor did not timely respond; and 
  • Reserved to the court the right to resolve any disputes. 

The order effectively reserved the issue of when valid Section 503(b)(9) claims would be paid but made the procedures the exclusive method for determining the validity and amount of such claims. I expect that other debtors will pursue similar procedures for handling these "20 day goods" claims.

Don’t Touch That Dial. These early decisions are the first in what should be many future rulings on the questions posed by Section 503(b)(9). I’ll continue to update you on how courts are interpreting this new administrative claim and, over time, we should begin to see more clarity on how debtors, vendors, and courts will address this new BAPCPA provision.

The Financially Troubled Company

Assessing The Distressed Company: A Peek Inside The VC’s Toolbox

Will Price, a principal with venture capital firm Hummer Winblad, has a very interesting post called Isolating Causality: Bad Market or Bad Company. Will identifies a series of factors that can help start-up companies and their investors tease out whether a company’s financial and performance problems are company-centric or instead the result of not having a viable market for its products or services. 

Being able to tell the difference is crucial. As Will points out, when the problem is the absence of a market, neither additional investment nor new management will solve the problem. Instead, these companies are likely to be sold, wound down, or have to file for bankruptcy. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

20 Day Goods: New Administrative Claim For Goods Sold Just Before Bankruptcy

In a recent post about a vendor’s reclamation rights, I discussed how the 2005 amendments to the bankruptcy laws, known as the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (called "BAPCPA"), extended a vendor’s right to reclaim goods once a bankruptcy petition has been filed. This post focuses on another of BAPCPA’s important changes affecting vendors, specifically, the new provision giving vendors an administrative claim for certain pre-petition goods sold.

Expanded Reclamation Right. As mentioned in my earlier post, a new 45 day bankruptcy reclamation right was added to Section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Prior to this change, the Bankruptcy Code had merely incorporated the Uniform Commercial Code’s 10-day reclamation period. Now, once a bankruptcy is filed, a vendor can assert a reclamation demand for goods received within 45 days of the bankruptcy filing. However, in some cases a vendor may not be able to reclaim its goods. The reasons can include a failure to make a timely reclamation demand, the existence of a secured lender with a lien on the goods in question, or the debtor’s prior sale of the goods. 

A Brand New Administrative Claim For Vendors, Even If Reclamation Fails. If a vendor’s reclamation claim fails, another new Bankruptcy Code section, Section 503(b)(9), gives vendors an important additional right: an administrative priority claim for "the value of any goods received by the debtor within 20 days before" the date a bankruptcy petition was filed "in which the goods have been sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of such debtor’s business." 

In most cases, administrative claims are paid in full instead of only cents on the dollar as with general unsecured claims. This new administrative claim is therefore a significant benefit, in effect putting vendors selling goods to a debtor in the 20 days before the bankruptcy filing on par with vendors selling goods after the bankruptcy filing.

  • Section 546(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code expressly provides that even if a seller of goods fails to provide the required notice to have a post-bankruptcy reclamation claim, the vendor may still assert this special Section 503(b)(9) administrative claim. 
  • This administrative claim applies in all types of bankruptcy cases, including Chapter 11 reorganization cases, Chapter 7 liquidation cases, and Chapter 13 cases.
  • Vendors who sold goods during the 21 to 45 day period before the bankruptcy filing will have to rely on reclamation alone as to those goods.
  • In either case, vendors and debtors should keep good records of shipments and deliveries of all goods received during the 45 days before the bankruptcy filing.

Unresolved Issues. This provision has been in effect for only a year and there are still a number of unanswered questions about how it will actually work in bankruptcy cases. Reviewing these questions may give you a sense of some of the issues to keep in mind when considering whether you (if you’re a vendor) or your vendors (if you’re a debtor) will have an administrative claim for "20 day goods." These issues include:

  • Since the vendor is entitled to an administrative claim for the "value of any goods received by the debtor," does that mean the invoice price or some other amount?
  • Does the term "goods" include services bundled with the goods?
  • Does the term "goods" include intellectual property-based products, such as boxed software or other similar items, which the debtor resells or sublicenses?
  • Does the "received by the debtor" requirement exclude goods that have been drop-shipped to a debtor’s customer at the debtor’s direction?
  • What does the requirement that the goods have been "sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of such debtor’s business" really mean?
  • Does the vendor have to file a pleading to be paid on this administrative claim, given that this new section requires "notice and a hearing"?
  • Can the debtor pay for the goods at the beginning of the case, much as it would for goods purchased after the bankruptcy filing, as a way of treating qualifying vendors as "critical vendors"?
  • Can the debtor wait to pay for these "20 day goods" until a plan of reorganization goes effective, as it can for certain other administrative claims?
  • If a Chapter 11 case converts to a Chapter 7 case, will this "20 day goods" administrative claim be treated as a Chapter 7 administrative claim, ahead of all unpaid Chapter 11 administrative claims, including those for goods sold during the Chapter 11 case?
  • Will the existence of this administrative claim provision give vendors who actually got paid before the bankruptcy for "20 day goods" a new defense to a claim that the payment was preferential? 

Get Good Advice. These issues, and the potential for a valuable administrative claim, are yet another reason for vendors to get good legal advice as soon as they learn of a bankruptcy filing. Debtors also need to get good advice, both legal and financial, so they can factor in how the requirement to pay for these pre-petition goods as an administrative claim will impact their cash needs.

Stay Tuned. This provision has been in effect for only one year, and applies only to cases filed after BAPCPA took effect on October 17, 2005. No formal court decisions have addressed, much less answered, these open questions. I expect bankruptcy courts will start to answer some of these questions in the coming months, and I’ll keep you updated on those developments. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

Reclamation: Can A Vendor “Get The Goods” From An Insolvent Customer?

Although vendors sell goods to get paid, it doesn’t always work out that way. If the customer is insolvent or files bankruptcy, the vendor may be stuck with an unpaid account. To make matters worse, some customers (especially those with limited prospects for financing) may even "load up" on inventory and then file bankruptcy without paying. Regardless of why it happens, no one wants to ship goods and not get paid.

Some vendors, however, may be able to take advantage of a special, although limited, right to get back or "reclaim" certain of the goods. This reclamation right is part of both the Uniform Commercial Code and the Bankruptcy Code. The recent 2005 amendments to the bankruptcy laws, known as the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (called "BAPCPA"), made some significant changes that have enhanced a vendor’s rights in a bankruptcy. This post discusses how reclamation rights play out both before and after bankruptcy.

Reclamation before bankruptcy. If the customer has not filed for bankruptcy, a vendor’s reclamation rights are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (known as the "UCC"). UCC Section 2-702 is the UCC"s reclamation statute. It provides a seller with the right to reclaim goods that a customer received on credit "while insolvent" if the seller makes a demand within ten days after the customer received the goods. This 10-day period means that, absent a bankruptcy, a vendor’s reclamation right will be limited to reclaiming only those goods received by the customer in the ten days prior to the demand.

  • Under the UCC, "insolvent" means (A) having generally ceased to pay debts in the ordinary course of business other than as a result of good faith dispute; (B) being unable to pay debts as they become due; or (C) being insolvent within the meaning of federal bankruptcy law.
  • Under the federal Bankruptcy Code, insolvent means that the entity’s debts exceed the value of its assets at a fair valuation. This is essentially a balance sheet test but, importantly, one using market value and not financial reporting standards such as GAAP. Because they are prepared for a different purpose, GAAP balance sheets tend to overstate asset values and understate actual liabilities compared to the bankruptcy balance sheet test. Companies that might seem solvent under GAAP could be insolvent under the UCC or the Bankruptcy Code.
  • If the customer misrepresented its solvency in writing during the three months before the delivery of the goods in question, then the 10-day limitation does not apply.

The UCC reclamation demand. To exercise a reclamation right before bankruptcy, the vendor must make a demand. The demand should be in writing, directed to the customer, identify which goods are being reclaimed to the extent that information is available, include a general statement reclaiming all goods received by the customer from the vendor during the applicable time period, and demand that the goods be segregated. Vendors should consult with counsel to be sure the demand adequately protects their reclamation rights.

Reclamation after bankruptcy. Because of changes made in the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, applicable to all bankruptcy cases filed on or after October 17, 2005, the filing of a bankruptcy now actually expands a vendor’s reclamation rights. These new provisions apply in both Chapter 11 reorganization cases and Chapter 7 liquidation cases. Some of the key changes include:

  • A new, 45-day bankruptcy reclamation right has been added to Section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Prior to this change, the Bankruptcy Code had merely incorporated the UCC’s 10-day period. Now, once a bankruptcy is filed, a vendor can assert a reclamation demand for goods received within 45 days of the bankruptcy filing.
  • The goods must have been sold in the "ordinary course" of the vendor’s business and the debtor must have received the goods while insolvent (using the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of insolvent discussed above).
  • The reclamation demand must be in writing and made within 45 days of the receipt of the goods by the customer (now the debtor in bankruptcy).
  • If the 45-day period expires after the bankruptcy case is filed, the vendor must make the reclamation demand within 20 days after the bankruptcy filing.
  • As with pre-bankruptcy demands under the UCC, the demand should identify the goods being reclaimed, include a general statement reclaiming all goods received by the debtor from the vendor during the 45-day period, and demand that the goods be segregated. Vendors may also want to file a notice of reclamation with the bankruptcy court.

Sold goods and other issues. Whether before or after a bankruptcy filing, a vendor will lose its right to reclaim any goods that the customer sells before or after receiving the vendor’s reclamation demand. 

  • Absent an agreement with the customer or a reclamation program approved by the bankruptcy court (see this example from the Delphi case, which was filed before the new BAPCPA rules took effect), a vendor may be forced to seek and obtain a court order preventing further sales of goods while its reclamation claim is pending. 
  • This "sold goods" problem has probably become more important because BAPCPA removed language from the prior version of Section 546(c) that had allowed a bankruptcy court to give a reclaiming vendor an administrative claim (with priority over unsecured claims and certain other claims) in lieu of a return of the goods.
  • Both the UCC and the Bankruptcy Code require that the debtor itself must have received the goods for them to be reclaimed. Thus, goods that are drop shipped or otherwise delivered first to the debtor’s own customer likely will not be able to be reclaimed.
  • If the debtor made a misrepresentation of its solvency and then filed bankruptcy, it’s unclear whether the 45-day rule in bankruptcy will govern or whether, like under the UCC, no time limit will apply. Keep in mind, however, that often goods shipped as far back as 45 days or longer, and sometimes even as few as 10 days for debtors with fast inventory turns, may already have been sold and thus will not be subject to reclamation. 

Rights of secured creditors. A vendor’s reclamation right is further limited by the possibility that the debtor may have granted a bank or other creditor a security interest in the goods, which will be senior to the reclamation right.  As amended in 2005, Section 546(c) now expressly makes reclamation rights subject to the prior rights of a secured creditor with a security interest in goods or their proceeds.

New administrative claim for 20-day goods. Even if a vendor fails to make a reclamation demand, all may not be lost. A new Bankruptcy Code section, Section 503(b)(9), added by BAPCPA, gives vendors an administrative priority claim for the value of any goods received by the debtor within 20 days prior to the bankruptcy filing if the goods were sold in the ordinary course of the debtor’s business. (I intend to discuss this new provision in a future post.) For now, note that it may be an important "fall back" right for vendors who fail to make a reclamation demand or who are unable to reclaim goods for other reasons.

Impact of new reclamation right on debtors and other creditors. With every new right also comes new burdens. Vendors certainly have greeted as good news the ability to reclaim goods received by a debtor as far back as 45 days. The impact of these changes on debtors, however, remains unclear. Some bankruptcy attorneys wonder whether this expanded reclamation right, together with the administrative claim for 20-day goods and certain other changes made by BAPCPA, will make it more difficult for debtors to reorganize or otherwise to pay unsecured creditors.

As always, get good legal advice. Reclamation can involve a number of twists and turns. Vendors who think they may have reclamation rights should be sure to get legal advice immediately upon learning of a customer’s insolvency or bankruptcy to protect their interests, just as debtors should to know their own rights in response to reclamation demands.