Unsecured Trade Creditors Committee


Post date: Monday, August 03, 2020

For the last 25 years, third-party releases in chapter 11 plans were thought to be categorically prohibited in the Ninth Circuit. With its recent decision in Blixseth v.

Post date: Monday, June 01, 2020

One thing that Toys “R” Us, Sears and Forever 21 have in common is that all three cases are administratively insolvent.[1] Vendors who extended credit to the debtor after the petition date in reliance on the debtor’s assurances that it had adequate “DIP” financing to justify new credit terms got stuck a second time when there were inad

Post date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019

In Devices Liquidation Trust v. KMT Wireless LLC (In re Pers. Commc’ns Devices LLC), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York denied a critical vendor’s motion for summary judgment that advocated for a “hindsight extrapolation” approach to the critical-vendor defense.[1]

Post date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019

The value of the legitimate cannabis industry in the U.S. (measured by annual sales) is rapidly approaching $10 billion and is expected by some to exceed $20 billion within the next five years. As the market grows, companies that do not grow or sell cannabis are nonetheless doing business with some that do.

Post date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Bankruptcy attorneys are familiar with the statutory defenses to preferences and fraudulent transfers. Less familiar is the so-called “contract assumption defense.” Courts have employed that non-statutory defense to bar preferences and fraudulent transfers based on three primary arguments:

Post date: Monday, March 04, 2019

Setoff is a valuable state law remedy for trade creditors with a claim against, and an obligation owing to, an insolvent customer. The right of setoff allows a creditor to “net” or cancel mutual debts to avoid having to pay its debt to a debtor in full while standing in line to recover its claim against the debtor.

Post date: Monday, March 04, 2019

Bankruptcy Judge Brendan L. Shannon recently confirmed the chapter 11 plan of RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated debtors, notwithstanding that the plan proposed significantly better treatment for unsecured trade creditors than for other general unsecured creditors.

Post date: Monday, March 04, 2019

With apologies to Twain and Disreali,[1] the title quote may come to mind when, in response to a defense letter outlining an ordinary course of business (OCB) defense comparing consistent and without-undue-collection-effort billing and payment practices in the “preference period”

Post date: Monday, September 24, 2018

The U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana recently affirmed the U.S.

Post date: Monday, September 24, 2018

Most oil and gas-producing states have oil and gas mineral lien statutes (similar to what many lawyers know as mechanic’s and materialman’s lien statutes) that grant automatically arising liens in favor of vendors that provide services in connection with oil and gas well operations.


Fri, 2016-04-15

Beware of the Traps: Ethical and Fiduciary Issues for Committee Members and Professionals

Wed, 2016-03-30

The Unsecured Trade Creditors' Committee's call discussed “gifting” and other recent developments regarding application of the absolute priority rule. In In re ICL Holding, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that “gifting” is permissible in section 363 sales. Conversely, in prior opinions, both the Second and Third Circuits have held that “gifting” is not permissible in the context of a chapter 11 plan.

Thu, 2015-07-16

While lenders have relied on the protections of make-whole provisions in their loan agreements in the voluntary redemption context for years, what happens when a borrower files for bankruptcy and challenges the enforceability of such provisions in the bankruptcy context? This teleseminar explored these questions in light of the recent important decisions in Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. and Energy Future Holdings. Corp, et al.

Tue, 2015-06-09

Judge Rhodes and Michael Richman debated the need for venue reform in the bankruptcy code. Related portions of the commission report were also discussed. 

Sat, 2015-04-18

Advanced Defenses to Avoidance Actions: Understanding Them Can Make All The Difference

Wed, 2015-02-04

The Unsecured Trade Creditors Committee's most recent committee call was titled "Tricks of the Trade in Dealing with Executory Contracts," and was moderated by committee Co-chair, Lisa Gretchko. Speakers for this call included David Neumann of Two By Foresight LLC in Cleveland, Ohio, and Shirley Cho of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP in Los Angeles. Please review the attached excerpt from the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11's final report. The full report can be found online at http://commission.abi.org/.

Tue, 2014-11-04

The ABI’s Unsecured Trade Creditors’ Committee and the ABI’s Secured Credit Committee hosted a joint call featuring Mark Gittelman, Chief Practice Counsel - Asset Recovery at PNC. Mark led a discussion regarding the Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering procedures being utilized by financial institutions.

Thu, 2014-10-23

The Unsecured Trade Creditors Committee hosted their most recent bi-monthly committee call on Thursday, October 23rd. Eric J. Haber of Cooley LLP in New York, led a discussion regarding developing strategies in preference cases. Brent Weisenberg of Ballard Spahr in New York moderated the discussion. Please review the attached FAQ and materials that Eric provided attendees.

Wed, 2014-08-06

Third Party Releases are cropping up in Chapter 11 plans with increasing frequency: what are the standards for their inclusion in a plan? Who is getting released and why? What is the consideration for the Third Party Release? Are creditors who vote for the plan deemed to give a Third Party Release? Scott Wolfson of Wolfson Bolton P LLC in Troy, Michigan, led this discussion on third party releases and focused on the recent Fourth Circuit opinion in National Heritage Foundation v.

Wed, 2014-06-04

Section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a secured creditor to credit bid at a sale of its collateral unless the court orders otherwise for cause. If the secured creditor is the winning bidder, it may offset its claim with the purchase price of the collateral. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Radlax opinion (Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (2012)) affirmed secured creditors’ rights under section 363(k), but two 2014 opinions addressing credit bidding issues found cause to limit section 363(k) credit bidding.


  • 1
  • 2
Mr. Eric S. Chafetz
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
New York, NY
(646) 414-6886

Mr. Daniel I. Waxman
KEWA Financial Inc.
Lexington, KY
(859) 233-0352

Ms. Lauren Dorsett
Communications Manager
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Seattle, WA
(206) 622-3150

Ms. Samantha Martin
Education Director
Cleary Gottlieb
New York, NY
(212) 225-3341

Mr. A.J. Webb
Newsletter Editor
Frost Brown Todd LLP
Cincinnati, OH
(513) 651-6842

Mr. Jonathan J. Wernick
Special Projects Leader
B. Riley Advisory Services
Los Angeles, CA
(213) 409-6237

Please note that in order to view the content for the Committee Newsletters you must either sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member