Issues related to LLC member responsibilities a growing legal challenge.

June 2010

We recently read on the legal blog New York Business Divorce two very interesting articles on cases involving LLC regulations in the state of Delaware and their possible impact on legislation in New York and Florida, two states which have often been influenced in this area of the law by developments in Delaware.

The first article is an examination of a schism between two LLC members who were forced to split control of the company under their operating agreement, despite an unequal distribution in ownership shares between them.

The second article is a discussion of the legal and fiduciary duties of LLC members in regard to disclosing negotiations with outside entities for the sale of LLC assets prior to purchasing a co-member’s interests.

Limited Liability Company Membership Interests.

March 2010

In the last several years, the limited liability company (LLC) has become the entity of choice for entrepreneurs and new businesses. Borrowers have increasingly provided lenders security interests in limited liability company membership interests (LLC units) as collateral for loans. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) dictates a lender’s options after a borrower’s default. Recent economic developments have increased the likelihood of default on many commercial loans so knowledge of the options available under the UCC to a lender which holds LLC units as collateral will become increasingly important.

Let us also assume that the lender has negotiated a security agreement that gives it full rights to take over the LLC upon default. In order for the lender to take ownership of the LLC units, the lender must foreclose on its security interest through one of two processes detailed in the UCC.

Possible Barriers and Drawbacks.

For a lender who has a security interest in LLC units, the borrower’s right to vote on business matters involving the LLC and/or to manage the LLC is very important. If the borrower defaults, a lender may want to control the LLC via the borrower’s voting or management rights. A careless lender or third-party purchaser of the LLC units may only get a financial distribution right instead. Florida law, for example, provides that an assignee of LLC units has no right to participate in the management of the business and affairs of the company, or to exercise any rights or powers of the members, unless the operating agreement provides otherwise.

Even if the operating agreement allows the assignee (in our case, the lender) to exercise rights and powers of a member, the assignee cannot manage the LLC until either all non-assigning members approve of the transfer of management power or the procedure for complying with the transfer of management responsibilities, as stated in the operating agreement, is followed.

As a general rule, it is essential that the lender understand its options under the UCC, compare the benefits of each option, and act promptly upon default. A secured lender that fails to do so jeopardizes its basic remedies under the UCC for a default on a loan secured by LLC units.

INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY

February 2010

I.  Policy behind Chapter 11

1. To provide a “fresh start” for economically viable debtors;

2. To promote equality of distribution among similarly situated creditors;

3. To concentrate the activities of judgment creditors into a single court of broad and exclusive federal jurisdiction;

4. To provide “breathing space” to a debtor, permit a structured process outside of a quick liquidation to enhance asset values, and a determination by creditor classes of a “plan” for the distribution of the value of those assets.

 

When is Chapter 11 useful?

1. To provide an opportunity for financially troubled but economically viable company to restructure and continue operations, either under new ownership or a new financial structure, or by removing debt impediments to viability such as ruinous unsecured debt or disastrous contracts; or

2. To provide an orderly liquidation of a failed business that possesses assets that will have an enhanced value if sold for their “going concern” value or that need to be marketed through a special process, or that would benefit from the retention of current management and continuing operations throughout the liquidation process.

 

When is it not useful?

1. To postpone the death of an irretrievably failed business that lacks significant salvageable assets;

2. To halt a foreclosure entirely upon speculative hope that something will turn up in a few weeks;

3. To escape the oppressive terms of a secured lender with a blanket lien on all business assets (except in a few rare instances);

4. When a consensual workout or an assignment for the benefit of creditors in state court would work and is the less costly alternative.

 

Use of bankruptcy as a sales vehicle

1. Under § 363 (f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor may sell property of the bankruptcy estate free and clear of liens, claims and encumbrances, subject to certain restrictions. This allows debtor to make assets more marketable by severing third party claims and cleaning title.

2. Under certain conditions, a bankruptcy court can also, pursuant to § 363 (f), permit the debtor to sell property for which the debtor holds only a partial interest or where the debtor’s interests are contested by a third party.

 

II. First Steps in a Chapter 11 Case

Petition and Initial Filings

A chapter 11 case is commenced by filing a petition. The petition consists of an official form (or a document that substantially conforms to the official form) that requires the debtor to estimate the amount of its assets and liabilities. The required initial filings also include a list o the top 20 creditors and their addresses, parties with whom the debtor has executory (existing) contracts and leases, a corporate resolution authorizing the filing (if the debtor is a corporation) and an attorney’s verified statement disclosing the attorney’s fee arrangement.  A matrix of creditor addresses is also often required under the bankruptcy jurisdiction’s local rules.

Often filed initially, however, not required to be, are the schedules listing all secured and unsecured creditors, their potential claims, and the debtor’s assets and a list of equity security holders. Finally, a statement of financial affairs (called the “SOFA”) is required to be filed, a form document of some length that provides for a more detailed view of the debtor’s finances and situation regarding such things as litigation and property transfers pre-petition.

 

“First Day Motions”

Because the bankruptcy process initiated by the bankruptcy petition places the debtor under court supervision and restricts its ability to operate its business, a debtor must in the first instance obtain court permission to operate realistically. So-called “first day motions” are not necessarily filed the first day, but with an operating business they are often required to be filed and heard by the bankruptcy court as soon as possible, if not, in fact, the first day. Typical first day motions include:

 1. Employee Wages

2. Cash Collateral

3. Debtor in Possession (”DIP”) Financing

4. Retention Motions

5. Utilities

 

III. Small Business Debtor v. Non-Small Business Debtor

A small business bankruptcy case is a chapter 11 case involving a small business debtor, whom the Bankruptcy Code defines as a person engaged in commercial or business activities other than owning or operating real estate with debt no greater than (as of December 28, 2009) $2.19 million, not including debt to insiders and affiliates.

All chapter 11 debtors must attend meetings and timely file schedules and tax returns and allow the UST to inspect its books, but the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code added other obligations for the small business debtor. One theme of the small business amendments is that creditors deserve more and better information, presented in understandable and recognizable formats. Many sections of the small business amendments were framed with this goal in mind. As a result, small business debtors must file balance sheets, income statements, and cash flow statements with the petition, or state under penalty of perjury that none exist.

Small business debtors can receive only a 30 day extension of its time to file schedules and statement of financial affairs. In a small business case, the United States Trustee is required to conduct an initial interview with the small business debtor before the Section 341 meeting. Senior management and counsel are required to the initial debtor interview, as well as scheduling conferences and meetings of creditors.

 

IV. Leases and Executory Contracts

1. Leases

Section 365(d) (4) requires a debtor to assume or reject a lease of non-residential real property within 120 days of the petition date or the lease will be rejected. The court upon motion may extend the deadline an additional 90 days. No additional extension is permitted accept with the written approval of the landlord. The deadline may force a debtor to make premature decisions as to its future needs related to subject real estate, since, not atypically, a Chapter 11 debtor may not have its financing in place or its plan formulated (particularly if it turns on settlement of litigation) by the 210 day deadline.

In large retail cases, where there may be dozens of leases and sites to analyze, this requirement may be particularly burdensome. Leases may be rejected, assumed, or assumed and assigned, in accordance with the rules discussed below for executory contracts.

 

2. Executory Contracts

Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a debtor with authority to assume or reject an executory contract subject to court approval. In re Carlisle Homes, Inc., 103 B.R. 524, 534 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1988) the court explained: The purpose of § 365 is, in part, to enable the debtor to take advantage of favorable agreements that benefit the estate. The Bankruptcy Code does not define “executory contract.” The legislative history of § 365, however, is instructive as to the meaning of the term in the bankruptcy context. An executory contract is one on which performance remains due to some extent on both sides.

Upon rejection, the debtor must pay “rejection damages”, consisting of damages for breach of the contract, however, despite the fact the contract is rejected after the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the claim is as a general unsecured pre-petition claim and thus subjected to the limitations of any pro rata distributions to unsecured creditors. A debtor may also assume a favorable contract, and obligate itself to pay a “cure amount” and provide adequate assurance of future performance. Cure amounts are paid in full amount as a current obligation.

With some exceptions, a debtor may also assume and assign (i.e. sell) a favorable contract to a third party, subject to court approval. In such instances, the third party pays the cure amount and provides the adequate assurance of future performance. With both executory contracts and leases, upon assumption, the debtor is required to meet post-assumption obligations under those contracts and leases as those obligations come due.

Reader’s Digest rises from the ashes after Chapter 11 filing.

January 2010

A recent article in the Sunday edition of the New York Times on December 20, 2009, about the transformation of the Reader’s Digest is a great example of how a company can benefit from Chapter 11. This example shows how the process of denial, accepting and then embracing the process can help a business, regardless of its size and industry.

Now, two years after a private equity deal saddled Reader’s Digest with $2.2 billion in debt, and three months after it filed for bankruptcy, it is ready to emerge a reorganized and transformed company. Reader’s Digest was badly in need of help before it arrived. It was publicly traded at the time, and had almost $1 billion in debt, most of it from acquisitions. “Bye-bye, Reader’s Digest. Hello ‘multibrand media and marketing company that educates, entertains and connects audiences around the world.’”

Trials and tribulations of homeowners’ associations.

January 2010

As a member of my development’s homeowners’ association I know that we would not push a homeowner to foreclosure to pay dues. In this type of situation we would normally put liens on the house for the dues, but are very patient about giving them time to get caught up. This is the view of most homeowner associations regarding none-delinquent homeowner payment of dues.

But the grass needs to be cut, and you need to pay the lifeguards at the pool, etc. If all the homeowners decided they didn’t need to pay their HOA dues, every homeowner would lose access to the pool, would have to put up with overgrown weeds and the accompanying pests and other problems.

Our biggest losses come from homeowners filing bankruptcy, because HOA dues are forgiven by that process, as are liens on the house. Otherwise, we can collect when the house is sold.

The question becomes what to do when a homeowner abuses the process and stays in a home and does not pay, forcing the remaining homeowners to support him.

We have recently succeeded in assisting a HOA with a recalcitrant homeowner who had filed bankruptcy and wanted to stay without paying past, present or future payments as the foreclosing lender was not actively pursuing its foreclosure action.
For more information please visit us at http://www.sidneyturnerllc.com/and this article at http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/real-estate/west-palm-beach-country-club-feels-the-sting-120574.html

Recession forces homeowners to consider defaulting on mortgages.

November 2009

The current global recession and collapse of the real estate market has lead to a new trend of homeowners who can still afford to make payments but instead choose to default on their mortgages and find cheaper housing. With the housing market in South Florida devastated by the mortgage crisis and one of the worst foreclosure rates in the United States this new phenomenon could seriously affect the region’s economy.

Some homeowners in the struggling economy who have found that falling real estate prices have brought the value of their homes lower than the mortgage debt that they owe on their property, known as “underwater” mortgages, have responded to this unusual situation by simply trying to cancel their mortgages and move into more affordable homes.

Many of the debtors who choose to default on home mortgages don’t seem to consider or even realize many of the consequences of this action, especially that they are still responsible for paying the balance of their mortgage even in cases of default and that they cannot simply walk away from their obligations. They are liable to legal action from their creditors if they do not make their payments while actually having fewer legal options than some other debtors.

The threat of legal action is only one of several possible ramifications debtors face for voluntarily defaulting on a mortgage; other adverse affects include ruining their credit and facing the possibility of being forced into filing for bankruptcy to escape their obligations. If you would like to learn more about the issues related to “underwater” mortgages and homeowner’s options please refer to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902556993561567.html and if you have any questions or want additional information please visit us at Sidney Turner, LLC.

Read the rest of this entry »

Scott Rothstein Using Money From Alleged Ponzi Scheme to Fund Payroll

November 2009

The South Florida Business Journal reported on Monday, November 23, 2009 that former Chairman Scott Rothstein of Broward County’s RRA law firm was using money from his alleged Ponzi scheme – $10 million in one year – to fund his payroll, according to the allegations laid out in an amended federal warrant request filed Monday by the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. This is in addition to the substantial charitable contributions to local charities including hospitals.

Charitable and campaign donations given through the Rothstein Family Foundation, including $800,000 to Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, $1 million to Holy Cross Hospital, and $90,000 to the Republican Party of Florida, which was already turned over to the U.S. government.

These recipients of Rothstein’s largess, mostly in Fort Lauderdale and Broward County may be exposed to and subject to The Bankruptcy Trustee’s power to recover and recapture payments made that can be traced as proceeds from the ill gotten funds. Various theories of law may be applied to achieve this result similar to those being considered in the Madoff case. Please related article in The South Florida Business Journal.

Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler

November 2009

Three investors, the required number of creditors, in Scott Rothstein’s alleged Ponzi scheme filed an involuntary petition to put, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

It is reported that the federal government seized eight properties. Other creditors are lining up to get, obtain liens, replevin property or recover property as not having been properly transferred. The race to the court was on.

A bankruptcy would stay and remove all civil legal action against the firm to the federal jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court. A Broward County Circuit Court judge appointed a receiver last week, to oversee the firm’s finances. The petitioning investors in the bankruptcy are also seeking emergency appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee because of a “continuing risk of loss, concealment, dissipation and/or destruction” of RRA’s property.

The bankruptcy court will be able to centralize all of the asset recovery efforts and manage the equitable distribution of the estate assets. Please see article in the South Florida Business Journal, Wednesday, November 11, 2009,

Property Lender Files For Chapter 11

November 2009

CIT’s Bankruptcy Filing Expected in Days, the U.S.Government Infusion of $2.3 Billion at Risk. Financial firms such as CIT have historically been sold off or wound down after a Chapter 11 filing; for fear that customers will cause a run on the bank. But CIT expects to have enough creditor support to complete a prepackaged reorganization by year-end, a relatively short period for a bankruptcy case of its size.

This is a classic example of how planning ahead and in particular how you are going to finance the restructuring of your capital structure is an imperative to a successful reorganization. CIT has been working on this specific issue for months.

CIT is preparing a sweeping exchange offer that would eliminate 30% to 40% of its more than $30 billion in debt outstanding, said people familiar with the matter. The plan would offer bondholders new debt secured by CIT assets, as well as nearly all of the equity in a restructured firm. The new debt would mature later than current debt, the impending maturity of which has posed a problem for CIT.

The plan sets up a potential showdown between bondholders with debt coming due soon and those whose debt does not come due for years. If the company doesn’t receive enough bondholder support, it plans to execute the restructuring in bankruptcy court, the people familiar with the situation said.

In a move smoothing its restructuring, the company recently said that it had persuaded billionaire investor Carl Icahn to support its prepackaged bankruptcy plan. Mr. Icahn, who wanted to push CIT into liquidation, failed to persuade other bondholders to derail CIT’s restructuring plan. Please see the link provided to the WSJ article.

One loser from a bankruptcy would be the U.S. Treasury. Late last year it injected $2.3 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help stabilize the lender, which was weighed down by billions of dollars of bad student loans and subprime mortgages. The government investment is likely to be wiped out, said people familiar with the matter. Common shares would likely drop to zero, too, these people said. To learn more, read the article by  the Wall Street Journal or read the article posted on the New York Times website.

Who Really Owns Mortgage Note

October 2009

Surprise Ruling by Southern District of New York
Justice Department, Monitor of Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts, Takes Notice

Borrowers are getting the opportunity to turn the tables on bank creditors. The recent financial engineering and resulting financial instruments required by the securitization of mortgages has created a defense to the lenders attempting to foreclose on those defaulting borrowers.

On Oct. 9 in federal bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York. A judge ruled that a alleged lender, PHH Mortgage, hadn’t proved its claim to a delinquent borrower’s home in White Plains, Judge Robert D. Drain wiped out a $461,263 mortgage debt on the property. That’s right: the mortgage debt disappeared, via a court order. If the lender can’t come forward with proof of ownership, then borrowers may have a stronger argument in court and, may even be able to stay in their homes mortgage-free.

Securitizations allowed for large pools of bank loans to be bundled and sold to legions of investors, but some of the nuts and bolts of the mortgage game — notes, for example — were never adequately tracked or recorded during the boom. In some cases, that means nobody truly knows who owns what. Click here to learn more.