Posts Tagged ‘Business Reorganization’

Number THREE of the Six Major Points Series

July 2011

Here is Number Three of the Six Major Points Series

I handle corporate workouts, reorganizations and dissolutions and other types of disputes among co-owners of privately owned companies, in other words I advise clients when they are experiencing adverse business situations.

But what does it really mean to be a business lawyer handling dissolution and other types of disputes among co-owners or adverse business situations? Does it require a special temperament and skill set? Here’s my take on the answers to these questions:

It Means understanding business and the relationships that make it work.

This is the Third of the SIX Major Points Series

Number THREE of the Six Major Points Series

It Means Knowing the Law. Each form of business entity, be it partnership, corporation or limited liability company, is governed by a separate statutory scheme with rules that, in many key instances, are significantly different as is the case law that has developed around each form. The standing requirements to bring a dissolution proceeding vary among the entities, and even within the same type of entity depending on the statute invoked. The availability of a buyout remedy depends on the type of entity and the alleged statutory basis for dissolution. Under still-evolving case law the filing of a dissolution petition may inadvertently trigger a right of first refusal under a shareholders’ agreement. Particularly with corporations, there are numerous, mandatory, statutory provisions that come into play at the board level. The availability of a court-appointed receiver can differ depending on the entity type. The list goes on and on. The business lawyer must have a thorough understanding of the legal framework within which closely held businesses operate and whose rules govern forced judicial dissolution, derivative actions and other varieties of owner vs. owner litigation.

If you missed any please check out my other blog postings

Sidney Turner

www.SidneyTurnerllc.com

 

Share

Number TWO of the Six Major Points Series

July 2011

Here is Number Two of the Six Major Points Series

I handle corporate workouts, reorganizations and dissolutions and other types of disputes among co-owners of privately owned companies, in other words I advise clients when they are experiencing adverse business situations.

But what does it really mean to be a business lawyer handling dissolution and other types of disputes among co-owners or adverse business situations? Does it require a special temperament and skill set? Here’s my take on the answers to these questions:

It Means understanding business and the relationships that make it work.

This is the Second of the SIX Six Major Points Series


Number TWO of the Six Major Points Series

It Means Knowing Your Client’s Business. Every closely held business is different. Some operate on a partnership model with diffuse authority and little or no formality in regard to decision making. Written agreement among the owners may be non-existent. Others may have detailed written agreement calling for hierarchical management, and still act like a cadre of co-equals, others may have a hierarchical management structure that is rigorously followed. The business lawyer also must discern who holds what leverage in the company’s business. For example, one owner may control relations with the company’s key customers, which may have significant implications in terms of who’s in a position to buy out whom. One owner may have personal financial resources the other lacks, or may personally own the real estate housing the company’s business. The point is, as a business lawyer you need to understand how the business at hand operates, not just on paper but in practice, and you need to understand how the business operation affects your client’s ability to prosecute or defend claims of shareholder oppression, deadlock or financial impropriety, and how it influences the range of possible outcomes.

If you missed any please check out my other blog postings

Sidney Turner

www.SidneyTurnerllc.com

 

Share

Number ONE of the Six Major Points Series

July 2011

People have asked me to explain what I do and what it means.

I handle corporate workouts, reorganizations and dissolutions and other types of disputes among co-owners of privately owned companies, in other words I advise clients when they are experiencing adverse business situations.

But what does it really mean to be a business lawyer handling dissolution and other types of disputes among co-owners or adverse business situations? Does it require a special temperament and skill set? Here’s my take on the answers to these questions:

It Means understanding business and the relationships that make it work.

There are Six Major Points Series I will cover over the next few blogs. Starting with

 

Number ONE of the Six Major Points Series

It Means supporting the Client through this difficult time. It’s called adverse business situation for a reason. A relationship is being torn asunder in the breakup of a business partnership. It’s not just about money. It’s about the inter-personal grievances, resentments, antagonisms, affections, disappointments, jealousies, and innumerable other emotions that attach to people with close relationships whose common interests have diverged to a critical point. The emotions can run even higher when it’s a family-owned business. The client’s need for support and guidance, on top of the uncertainties surrounding the future of the business in which the client’s self-identity is wrapped, puts a premium on the lawyer’s accessibility, empathy and ability to give on-the-spot advice and reassurance. These qualities in a business lawyer are particularly important because, business dissolution is highly dynamic. By that I mean, the now-adverse business partners, who often have to continue working together and make business decisions while simultaneously engaging in mutual mud-slinging, require constant input from legal counsel to assist with a daily stream of new issues.

If you missed any please check out my other blog postings

Sidney Turner

www.SidneyTurnerllc.com

 

Share

Did You Know?

June 2011

 

Controlling owner or partner of closely held company buys out interests of non-controlling owners who subsequently sue for damages raised for example by the general partner of a real estate limited partnership who misled the limited partners into selling him their interests at a price far below market value. It can be argued that damages can be calculated as the difference between the actual sale price and the value of the asset or interest at the time of the trial or at the time of the transaction at issue.

Sidney Turner

www.SidneyTurnerllc.com

 

 

Share

Hazards of Co-mingling Funds

June 2011

Estate of Richard Glatzer, Appellee.

No. 3D11-196
Lower Tribunal No. 10-4540

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

January Term, A.D. 2011
Filed: May 18, 2011

Opinion filed May 18, 2011.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence A. Schwartz and Gerald D. Hubbart, Judges.

May, Meacham & Davell, and William C. Davell, Carolyn B. Brombacher and Christopher D. Barber (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Steven Silverman, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN and SALTER, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SALTER, J.

Page 2

BankAtlantic appeals two non-final circuit court orders directing it to transfer the funds in a deceased physician’s professional association account to the depository account (at a different bank) established for the administration of his estate. We reverse both orders and remand for the entry of an order directing repayment of the funds (and any earnings thereon) to the account from which they were transferred.

BankAtlantic was a secured creditor of the late doctor’s professional association under a note and mortgage. The promissory note included a right of setoff:

RIGHT OF SETOFF. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Lender reserves a right of setoff in all Borrower’s accounts with Lender (whether checking, savings, or some other account)…. Borrower authorizes Lender, to the extent permitted by applicable law, to charge or setoff all sums owing on the indebtedness against any and all such accounts and, at Lender’s option, to administratively freeze all such accounts to allow Lender to protect Lender’s charge and setoff rights provided in this paragraph.

The decedent personally guaranteed his professional association’s promissory note, and his death constituted an event of default under that note. The orders requiring transfer of the funds to a different bank thus impaired BankAtlantic’s right of setoff. Although the parties agreed that the deceased physician owned all of the shares of his professional association, there was no evidence presented to support a “piercing of the corporate veil” under Dania Jai-Alai Palace v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1984), or any other alter ego theory.

Page 3

While the appellee Estate was apparently entitled to take possession of the professional association stock held by the doctor at his death, 1 no such conclusion extended to the association’s funds on deposit in the corporate name at BankAtlantic. In Gettinger v. Gettinger, 165 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1964), the Supreme Court of Florida held that “the affairs of a corporation, even though substantially owned by a decedent, cannot be administered by decedent’s executor as assets of the decedent’s estate.” In this case, “substantially” is 100%, and the result is identical.

The Estate seeks affirmance of the orders below on three independent grounds: (1) that the orders are not appealable; (2) that the Estate has the power to “take charge of and marshal” the funds in the professional association account; and (3) that the probate court ruling should be upheld because no decision was made regarding any competing claims to the funds. None of these arguments is persuasive.

As to jurisdiction, the orders are reviewable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). CRM Distrib., Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 593 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Regarding the Estate’s second argument, section 69.031(1), Florida Statutes (2010), and the cases cited by the Estate refer to marshaling “part or all of the personal assets of the estate” and to the

Page 4

use of court-approved depositories for such assets. The point in this case is that the stock of the professional association is an asset of the Estate, but the funds of the professional association are a step removed from the Estate. The decedent’s Estate essentially ignored the separate corporate existence of the professional association and that entity’s obligations to its own creditors.

The third argument also fails. BankAtlantic’s rights are not protected just because the funds are frozen in a restricted depository account of the Estate. In this case, BankAtlantic’s possessory and contractual rights to setoff are impaired by the transfer to a different bank.2

Reversed and remanded, with directions to order the return of the transferred funds (and any interest earned on such funds while in the transferee bank’s possession) to BankAtlantic.
——–

Notes:

1. § 733.607(1), Fla. Stat. (2010); Perez v. Lopez, 454 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

2.As an example of another such impairment, if the transferee bank later failed, BankAtlantic would have to protect its interests as an indirect creditor of the estate’s depository account (not as a direct creditor of a named account holder/debtor) in the transferee bank’s liquidation.

Sidney Turner

www.SidneyTurnerllc.com

 

Share

Trustee for Madoff Fraud to Distribute to Victims!

May 2011

The trustee appointed to unravel Bernard Madoff’s massive fraud is seeking to distribute recovered funds for the first time to the victims.

Trustee Irving Picard told a Manhattan bankruptcy court he is planning a $2.6 billion allocation, including an initial payout of $272 million.

Below is a link to an article in the Palm Beach Post

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/nation/ny-madoff-trustee-wants-to-start-paying-victims-1454512.html

 

Sidney Turner

www.SidneyTurnerllc.com


 

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

NexStore Marketplace in Boca Raton

August 2009

The South Florida Sun Sentinel, June 18, 2009, reported that the NexStore Marketplace was forced to close its doors recently after a food distributor removed its food and appliances from the business to collect on a debt. On May 14, a judge gave a creditor permission to immediately repossess goods it sold to NexStore for failure to pay its bills. But a judge ordered restaurant supplier Sysco Food Services of Southeast Florida Inc. to put it all back. Six days after Sysco filed court papers, another creditor sued NexStore for unpaid bills, according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

This is not a good sign. The Sun Sentinel did not indicate whether the NexStore had filed for protection from creditors, bankruptcy, however this fact pattern is the classic pattern where bankruptcy, should be and is, a very valuable tool to assist the cash strapped business to get some relief.

To learn more about how to protect yourself from creditors and/or bankruptcy, contact me at 561-208-6383 or emailing me at info@sidneyturnerllc.com.

Share

General Growth Properties Bankruptcy and Questions about Special Purpose Entities and other Series Entities

July 2009

General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) a large shopping center owner and operator, GGP Limited Partnership (“GGP LP”) and 166 of their shopping center subsidiaries filed Chapter 11 raising concerns for the separateness of special purpose entities and other series entities that have been created in recent years. The ostensible purpose of this type of entity, special purpose entity (SPE), is a legal entity (usually a limited company of some type or, sometimes, a limited partnership) created to fulfill narrow, specific or temporary objectives. SPE’s are typically used by companies to isolate the firm from financial risk. A company will transfer assets to the SPE for management or use the SPE to finance a large project thereby achieving a narrow set of goals without putting the entire firm at risk. Many of the shopping center subsidiaries were formed as bankruptcy-remote, special purpose entities (“SPEs”), had financed their properties with commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”). The CMBS loans mostly were not in default, solvent entities with excess cash flow and continued to be adequately collateralized. The cases have been procedurally consolidated and are being jointly administered. The court’s rulings in the case to date seemed to have maintained in the separateness of the SPEs.

The debtors filed motions seeking approval to, among other things, continue using their prepetition cash management system, use the secured lenders’ cash collateral and obtain debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing. Prior to the filings, the SPEs and other GGP subsidiaries practice was to upstream their income to a commingled account (the “Main Operating Account”) from which the expenses of all subsidiaries were paid and intercompany loans were made. The debtors indicated that they kept track and record all upstreamed cash and intercompany loans.

Initially, the debtors proposed that a DIP loan would be made to GGP and GGP LP and guaranteed by the SPEs. Many of the SPE debtors’ secured lenders objected to the debtors’ motions. The secured lenders argued, among other things, that the debtors’ use of their cash collateral, the continuation of the cash management system and the court’s approval of the DIP loan would constitute a de facto substantive consolidation of the debtors’ estates and violate the terms of the SPE debtors’ organizational documents and/or loan documents.

The court rejected objections stating that approval of the DIP loan and the cash collateral motion did not result in a substantive consolidation of the debtors’ estates. In addition to approving the DIP loan, the court also approved the debtors’ cash collateral and cash management motions. While there are still important unresolved issues, the angst generated by the bankruptcy filings of the SPEs has abated, at least temporarily, because the court’s orders have respected the separateness of the SPEs.

A few secured lenders have moved to dismiss the cases of some of the SPEs for cause on the ground that they were filed in bad faith. The lenders argue that the loans made to these SPEs are not in default, that each property is generating cash flow that is more than sufficient to cover the debt service, property taxes and operating expenses, and that the loans will not mature for at least a year.

According to these lenders, its respective SPE debtor’s bankruptcy case was not filed for a legitimate reorganizational purpose. The motions to dismiss raise many of the same issues about the debtors’ bankruptcy-remote status. Additionally, one lender has argued that its SPE debtor’s case should be dismissed because the corporate resolutions that authorized its bankruptcy filing were ineffective under state law and the filing violated the SPE’s organizational documents. That lender is pursuing the facts relating to the formal requirements of the bankruptcy filing, including the identity of any independent directors who consented to the filing and whether they met the requirements to serve as independent directors

Share