What the Fifth Circuit's Ruling on Avoidance Actions Means for Debtors
"While the Fifth Circuit's decision put to bed a longstanding question of law, it also gives rise to many others," writes John Kane of Kane Russell Coleman Logan.
February 21, 2024 at 12:00 PM
6 minute read
On Monday, Jan. 22, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered a ruling in the South Coast Supply Company case, Briar Capital Working Fund Capital v. Remmert (In re South Coast Supply), Case No. 22-20536, Doc. No. 00517039869 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2024), allowing a bankrupt debtor to sell preference claims arising under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. (Title 11 of the United States Code, sections 101 et seq., is generally referred to as the Bankruptcy Code.) In doing so, the Fifth Circuit overruled the district court, which followed a long body of case law holding that debtors in possession could not sell avoidance actions. South Coast Supply, p. 5: ("the district court followed cases from bankruptcy courts ruling that outright sales of preference actions under 11 U.S.C. Section 547 are impermissible"). The Fifth Circuit's ruling in South Coast Supply will have meaningful effects on players in bankruptcy cases. Debtors have an immediately saleable asset that they can use to generate funds. Parties that lend money to debtors after the commencement of a bankruptcy case are generally referred to as "DIP Lenders" (DIP meaning debtor-in-possession). DIP lenders may subject avoidance actions to liens to secure post-petition loans. Official committees of unsecured creditors may now lack the leverage of judicial ambiguity within the Fifth Circuit once used to preserve avoidance actions for the exclusive (or sometimes shared) benefit of general unsecured creditors.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHaynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readJackson Walker Faces Greater Scrutiny After Disclosure of Texts Over Judge's Relationship
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 2Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 3State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 4Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
- 5Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250