Tag: Bankruptcy

Nevermind the Kombucha Jokes: WeWork Bankruptcy shows the power of 11 USC § 365

When WeWork filed bankruptcy last year, the reactions fell into two general buckets.

On a business level, the commercial real estate folks brought a “told you so” energy, calling this the end of flexible office space. On twitter, it was mostly jokes about former CEO/guru-preneur, Adam Neumann, poking fun at the company’s unchecked growth, sustained by freely flowing investor money, and boozy office vibes.

The bankruptcy lawyers had a different take. If current operations were struggling with past bad decisions, there was an obvious path for the company to right-size, by selective assumption and rejection of leases under 11 U.S.C. § 365.

That’s exactly what happened, as WeWork expects to emerge from the chapter 11 having negotiated approximately $8 billion (more than 40%) in reductions in rent obligations.

In a typical bankruptcy, a tenant usually is presented a “take it or leave it” choice on leases. Not WeWork. Whether it was a function of a bad CRE market or the scope of their leases, WeWork used chapter 11 to negotiate lots of concessions from its landlords.

A survey of recent “assumption” orders shows rent reductions, premise and term reductions, conversions to “gross” lease terms, and modifications to guarantees.

Sure, landlords can say “no” to changes like this, but these landlords aren’t.

It’s a smart move, and an indication that serious business people are in charge.

As a tenant of WeWork, I can confirm that the days of booze and debauchery are long gone. In fact, I’d say that they’ve over-corrected. (Ask me about the short-lived decision a few years ago to remove trash cans from individual offices.)

What is in store for the Nashville locations? We don’t know yet. My review of the Bankruptcy Court docket suggests that the debtor has taken no action on the four locations in Nashville.

Pursuant to an Order signed by the Bankruptcy Court on April 29, 2024, the current deadline for these decisions is June 3, 2024. So far, they’ve dealt with only a fraction of the landlords, but I expect lots of activity over the next month.

We’ll know the future of the Nashville locations soon.

Don’t Worry About Party Fowl: Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Isn’t Always a Bad Thing

Bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily mean that a business is shutting down.

You wouldn’t think that, though, based on the reactions online to the news that Party Fowl, a local “Nashville Hot Chicken” restaurant, filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week.

Some of it can be chalked up to schadenfreude: The restaurant was the site of a fairly salacious political scandal involving some of Tennessee’s least likeable politicians in recent memory. Whether it’s echoes of that scandal or its location in the party-centric Gulch, Party Fowl tends to get a bad rap from locals.

The reactions also reveal common misconceptions about how Chapter 11 works. Sure, if a company files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, something has gone terribly wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the company.

The goal in Chapter 11 is rarely to simply shut down, but, instead, it’s to reorganize and stay in business. This generally involves freezing payments to creditors (unless it’s post-bankruptcy vendor payments), restructuring the company’s debts (i.e. extending the payment terms and, sometimes, paying only a fraction of the amounts owed), rejecting leases (i.e. undoing bad business decisions), and, generally, cut operations and expenses going forward (i.e. downsizing). 

At the end of this process, a chapter 11 debtor will propose a plan of reorganization (based on a realistic budget it can handle) to keep its business alive and pay creditors over time.

Most companies continue operations after filing Chapter 11, and the customers will never notice any difference. Party Fowl filed bankruptcy nearly ten days ago, but they’ve been selling hot chicken continuously over the past two weeks.

Party Fowl appears to have some good reasons for filing. Based on their Company Profile (copy below), the debtor told the Bankruptcy Court that COVID was a big disruption with awful timing: They started a bold expansion in March 2020, and those new locations have struggled and drained resources, impaired cash flow, and led them to take out some fairly onerous and high interest merchant lender loans to bridge the gap. The bankruptcy filing allows the debtor stop paying those sky-high rate loans and use the income to right-size the business.

This is a Creditors Rights blog, written by a creditor rights lawyer, so please don’t think I’m going soft here. Based on the pretty extreme “Party Fowl, we hardly knew thee” reactions, I thought a little bit of background could be useful.

And, don’t worry, I’ve got lots of criticisms about the chapter 11 process, but I’ll save those for a later post. (Just wait until I tell you the story about the mega-bankruptcy case that paid the lawyers $100s of millions of dollars in legal fees and costs over 5 years, and the check my client received last month for 1.04% of his claim…)

docket-x-js-concepts-summary-of-background-filingDownload

Nashville Business Journal Names Me “Best of Bar” for Bankruptcy!

If you’re a subscriber to the Nashville Business Journal or, otherwise, just an enthusiast of  lawyer recognition awards, you may have already heard the news:

Last week, I was named one of Middle Tennessee’s Best of the Bar for 2019 (in Bankruptcy) by the Nashville Business Journal!

This honor pales in comparison to the cover story from the Nashville Scene in July 2010, for my winning entry their You are So Nashville If… contest, but I’m proud to receive this award. Unlike many lawyer awards, the Best of the Bar lists are based on nominations from the public, with the ultimate winners voted on by the nominees and their peers.

Continue reading “Nashville Business Journal Names Me “Best of Bar” for Bankruptcy!”

Will an Adversary Proceeding Survive the Dismissal of the Bankruptcy Case? Maybe.

Eight years ago (8 years! You are reading a law blog that has lasted for 8 years!), I talked about the difference between a bankruptcy discharge and a dismissal.

The tl;dr version for creditors? Discharge is bad; dismissal is good.

But, what if you’re a creditor and the debtor has filed an adversary proceeding against you, but then the bankruptcy case is dismissed?

The tl;dr version? It depends.

Generally, the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case results in the dismissal of related adversary proceedings because federal jurisdiction is “premised upon the nexus between the underlying bankruptcy case and the related proceedings.” But, there are exceptions.

One such exception is for proceedings to enforce sanctions and contempt for violation of the automatic stay. A Bankruptcy Court will retain jurisdiction “for the purpose of vindicating the court’s own authority and to enforce its own orders.” See In re Bankston, 1:12-BK-14022-SDR, 2015 WL 6126440, at *2 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015)

Basically, the reasoning goes, an action for contempt of court resulting from a party’s blatant disregard of the Bankruptcy Code and the authority of the Bankruptcy Court is something that the Bankruptcy Court takes very seriously and will enforce, independent of whether the underlying case still exists.

The reasoning is different for other types of proceedings that are dependent on the underlying case, like actions to recover avoidance preferences.

 

Leases Can be Assigned in Bankruptcy Court, No Matter What the Lease Says

If you’re a smart commercial landlord (or you have smart drafting counsel), you’ll include a provision in your commercial lease agreement that prohibits transfers or assignments of the lease without the landlord’s consent.

The reasoning is obvious: Not all tenants are created equal, and it should be the landlord who gets to pick the tenants, not the tenants.

Despite an otherwise valid “anti-assignment” provision in a lease, a lease can be assigned by a bankruptcy debtor-in-possession or trustee under the Bankruptcy Code.

Specifically, 11 U.S.C. § 365(f) provides that:

(1) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, notwithstanding a provision in an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor, or in applicable law, that prohibits, restricts, or conditions the assignment of such contract or lease, the trustee may assign such contract or lease under paragraph (2) of this subsection.

(2) The trustee may assign an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor only if–

(A) the trustee assumes such contract or lease in accordance with the provisions of this section; and

(B) adequate assurance of future performance by the assignee of such contract or lease is provided, whether or not there has been a default in such contract or lease.

This will most likely come up in an Section 363 sale of the assets of the debtor, where a buyer gets the assets, along with certain court ordered benefits and protections (this subsection included).

No matter how well crafted certain documents are (whether it’s a note, deed of trust, or lease), there are certain situations in which a Bankruptcy Court will pre-empt state law. This is one of them.

 

Judicial Estoppel Prevents Litigants from Contradicting Themselves

When I’m involved in litigation, I always look for recent cases involving my opposing party, to mine those cases for similar issues, useful facts, and relevant admissions to use in my case.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a recent opinion, at Polly Spann Kershaw v. Jeffrey Levy  (Tenn. Ct. Apps, Mar. 28, 2018, No. M2017-01129-COA-R3-CV), that reminds me that this is a good idea.

In that case, a former client sued her lawyer, alleging that, as a result of his alleged bad advice and malpractice, she entered into an unfair and generally bad divorce settlement after he withdrew from the case.

But, as part of her divorce settlement, she signed a sworn Marital Dissolution Agreement, which included the affirmation that “the Agreement is fair and equitable and that it is being entered into voluntarily…”

In response to the client’s claims that she was forced into an “unfair” divorce settlement, the lawyer filed for summary judgment, citing those sworn statements in the divorce pleadings and arguing, under the concept of “judicial estoppel,” that she can’t change her position.

The Court of Appeals agreed, saying that “[t]he sworn statement is not merely evidence against the litigant, but (unless explained) precludes him from denying its truth. It is not merely an admission but an absolute bar.” Further, judicial estoppel “seeks to ensure that parties do not ‘play fast and loose with the courts’ by contradicting a previous sworn statement or testimony.”

A litigant may have different incentives in front of different courts, and this is certainly useful when an opposing party has filed Bankruptcy or divorce–both settings where it may be beneficial to understate their income or the value of their assets.  I’ve specifically used it where a litigant affirms a debt or lien in Bankruptcy Schedules, which are signed under oath, and then, later in state court, tries to contest my bank’s claims.

All Those Great Recession Judgments May be Expiring Soon

Depending on who you ask, the “Great Recession” resulting from the subprime mortgage crisis began in December 2007 and lasted about two years. So, about ten years ago, I was spending most of my work days working on loan documents for third, fourth, and sometimes fifth mortgages for a local bank who was really, really late to the mortgage boom.

Of course, the impact of this past recession was felt for years afterwards, meaning my spring 2007 HELOCS didn’t go bad until 2010 or 2012. As a result, just a few years later, I was suing and taking judgments against those same borrowers. From 2008 to 2014, I estimate that I obtained at least 500 judgments, ranging in amounts from $2,500 to $5,000,000.

As I like to say, if you were hearing from me, it was bad news.

So, with a drawer full of judgments, this is what keeps me up at night: Those judgments are only valid for ten years, and, if I haven’t collected on them, they expire.

I’m taking about Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-110(a)(2), which provides that actions on judgments are only valid for ten years.

So, a good rule of thumb is that, if you received a judgment against someone you haven’t been able to collect in the last ten years, go back and confirm when you were awarded that judgment. If you’re getting close to the ten year mark, you might be running out of time.

(But, not to be too dramatic, I’m going to talk about how to extend that time period soon.)

 

 

Do-It-Yourself Creditors: Beware of the Claim Redaction Requirements in Bankruptcy Court

After many years of Tennessee Bankruptcy Court practice, I notice trends in litigation. Years ago, there was a flurry of attacks on Deeds of Trust for invalid notaries. Then came the debtors objecting to the documentation filed on “big mortgage lender” mortgage claims.

Right now, the hot issue is adversary proceedings (i.e. bankruptcy lawsuits)  against creditors for failure to redact personal information when they file Proofs of Claim.

When you file a Proof of Claim in Bankruptcy Court, you are obliged to comply with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037, which provides in part

…in an electronic or paper filing made with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual, other than the debtor, known to be and identified as a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only:

(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;

(2) the year of the individual’s birth;

(3) the minor’s initials; and

(4) the last four digits of the financial-account numb

To clarify, “redaction” means that you must cross-out or otherwise remove the information, other than the information expressly allowed above. To keep it simple, I keep a Sharpie pen at my desk and mark up any loan/account documents I file as exhibits to my claims.

Now, debtors are watching all claims filed and, where a claim contains prohibited information, the debtor files a Motion to Redact and that motion seeks also sanctions against the offending creditor. Recovery can include damages, costs of future credit monitoring, and attorney fees.

I know what you’re thinking: your borrower filed bankruptcy on your debt; you’re never going to get paid; you went to the trouble of filing a claim on a debt you’re never going to get paid on; and, now, they can sue you if you do it wrong?

Yes, they can.

Speaking at Landlord-Tenant Law Seminar on April 28, 2011

On April 28, 2011, I’ll be speaking at the 8th Annual Landlord-Tenant Law-With a View from the Bench on Litigation Seminar in Nashville, presented by Sterling Education Services.

I’ll be teaching the afternoon session, on topics covering Collections, Enforcement of Judgment, Dealing with Tenant Bankruptcy, and Legal Ethics in Landlord-Tenant law.

Here’s the full agenda. This seminar gets lawyers continuing legal education credits, but it’s also designed for rental agents, landlords, and other non-lawyers who want to learn the legal process.

How to Get a Chapter 7 Trustee’s Attention: Show Off Your Stuff on TV

In most cases, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustees have far more cases than they have time to focus on each case. It’s common that there are 30-40 cases on each 2 hour docket.

But, a sure-fire way to stand out and really get the Trustee’s attention is show off your wealth on reality TV. That’s what one cast member of The Real Housewives of New Jersey did, and, now, in her individual Chapter 7, the Trustee’s scrutiny of her disclosures revealed that the debtor failed to disclose all her assets, which may allow the Trustee to contest the discharge under 11 U.S.C. 727.

A bankruptcy discharge wipes out all debt, but the price to be paid for that benefit is that a debtor must disclose everything–both debts and assets. From a creditor’s perspective, a well-informed Trustee can be the last hope for any recovery.