Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fifth Circuit Vacates DIP Financing Orders
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Sept. 3, 2014, vacated five bankruptcy court and district court Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing orders due to: 1) the lender's lack of good faith in relying on a third party's shares of stock as collateral; and 2) the bankruptcy court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction to authorize a lien on third party collateral subject to disputed ownership claims. In re TMT Procurement Corp., 2014 WL 4364894 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2014). To vacate the orders and hear the appeal, the Fifth Circuit had to reject the debtors' argument that the consolidated appeals were moot because of the lower courts' repeated findings “that the DIP Lender ' extended financing to the Debtors in good faith and was entitled to the full protections of sections 363(m) and 364(e) of the Bankruptcy Code ["Code"].” Id. at *3. Significantly, the court of appeals only found that the DIP lender lacked the statutory “good faith,” but not that it acted in bad faith. This distinction is meaningful due to the unusual facts of the case.
Relevance
The TMT decision is important to DIP lenders. Code sections 364(e) and 363(m) ordinarily will “moot ' an appeal” from a financing or a Section 363 sale order when “the purchaser or lender acted in good faith,” unless the appellant “obtain[s] a stay” pending appeal. Id. at *4. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, however, an appeal from a DIP financing order, when “a stay is not granted,” can still be heard despite Code Section 364(e) if the “lender ' has not disbursed” funds on the DIP loan. In re Swedeland Dev. Group, Inc., 16 F.3d 552, 561 n.7, 562 (3d Cir. 1994) (en banc). Further, “[t]he purpose of [' 364(e)] is to encourage the extension of credit to debtors ' by eliminating the risk that any lien securing the loan will be modified on appeal.” In re Saybrook Mfg. Co., Inc., 963 F. 2d 1490, 1493 (11th Cir. 1992). Appellate courts, however, rarely find good faith lacking and rarely overturn DIP financing orders. The appellant in TMT had not obtained a stay, making the lender's good faith a threshold issue for the Fifth Circuit.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?