A A creditor defending a preference claim can assert numerous - - PDF document

A

Standby Letter of Credit Payments Can Be Hazardous to Your New Value Preference Defense

Bruce NathaN, esq.

S e l e c t e d t o p i c

1

B u s i n e s s C r e d i t J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

S e l e c t e d t o p i c

Bruce NathaN, esq.

A creditor defending a preference claim can assert numerous defenses to reduce its exposure. One such defense, the subsequent new value defense arising under Section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, allows a creditor to reduce its preference liability on a dollar- for-dollar basis by the amount of new value the creditor had extended to the debtor subsequent to an alleged preference payment. Well what happens if a trade creditor, wise in the ways

• f risk mitigation, obtains a standby letter of credit to

reduce the risk of non-payment from a troubled cus- tomer? Following the customer’s bankruptcy fjling, the creditor obtains payment of its claim from the letter of credit issuing bank by presenting all of the documents required by the letter of credit. Tie letter of credit pay- ment should not be recoverable as a preference. How- ever, what about the payments the creditor received from the debtor within 90 days of the bankruptcy? Tiey are at risk of recovery as preferences, subject to the creditor’s defenses, such as the subsequent new value

• defense. But what if the creditor’s invoices subject to its

new value defense are paid from the proceeds of the creditor’s letter of credit draw prior to the bankruptcy? Tie United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, in In re All American Semiconductor, Inc., recently addressed this question. While the credi- tor had no preference liability as a result of the payment it had received on the letter of credit, the creditor’s pref- erence risk increased as a result of the loss of the new value defense for the invoices paid from the proceeds of the letter of credit. Preference claims and the New Value Defense A trustee can recover a preference by satisfying all of the requirements of Bankruptcy Code Section 547(b). A creditor can assert one or more defenses to preference liability under Section 547(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. One such defense is the subsequent new value defense arising under Bankruptcy Code Section 547(c)(4). A creditor can prove the new value defense to the extent of the new goods and/or services that the creditor had sold and delivered to the debtor, on credit terms, subsequent to the preference.

THE PUBLICATION FOR CREDIT & FINANCE PROFESSIONALS $7.00 N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N O F C R E D I T M A N A G E M E N T

JANUARY 2013

One of the requirements of the subsequent new value defense, contained in section 547(c)(4)(B), is that the creditor’s new value was not paid by an otherwise unavoidable transfer by the debtor to or for the creditor’s benefit.

2

B u s i n e s s C r e d i t J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

Tie subsequent new value defense protects a creditor from preference risk because the debtor’s creditors were not harmed by a preference where the creditor had provided new inven- tory and/or services to the debtor afuer the payment. Tie cred- itor’s new value repaid the preference and, therefore, did not deplete or diminish the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Tie new value defense is also supposed to encourage creditors to con- tinue extending credit to fjnancially troubled companies and promote equality of treatment among creditors. One of the requirements of the subsequent new value defense, contained in Section 547(c)(4)(B), is that the creditor’s new value was not paid by an otherwise unavoidable transfer by the debtor to or for the creditor’s benefjt. In All American Semicon- ductor, Inc., the creditor received payment of a portion ($1 million) of the invoices, included as part of its new value defense, as part of the creditor’s draw on a standby letter of credit that All American Semiconductor had caused Harris Bank to issue for the creditor’s benefjt. Tie court ruled that the creditor’s invoices that were subsequently paid by Harris Bank did not count as eligible new value to reduce the credi- tor’s preference liability. Overview of standby Letters of credit Trade creditors frequently rely on a standby letter of credit as a backstop to protect them from the risk of nonpayment of their invoices by a fjnancially troubled customer. A letter of credit arrangement involves three parties and three indepen- dent contracts. Tie fjrst contract frequently involves a sale of goods or provi- sion of services between a seller and a buyer. Tie wrinkle is that a seller may condition extending credit or otherwise doing business with a buyer upon the buyer’s obtaining a let- ter of credit in favor of the seller. As part of the second contract, the buyer, as the letter of cred- it applicant, enters into an agreement with the bank issuing the letter of credit. Tie buyer agrees to repay the bank, fre- quently on a secured basis, for the bank’s payments made to the benefjciary upon the presentation of conforming docu- ments, together with the bank’s charges and commissions earned from issuing the letter of credit. Tie third contract is the standby letter of credit that the bank issues in favor of the seller, as benefjciary. When the benefj- ciary submits documents to the issuing bank, the bank’s sole duty is to examine the documents and determine whether they comply with the terms of the letter of credit. When the bank determines that the benefjciary has presented all of the documents required by the letter of credit, the issuing bank must pay the amount requested by the benefjciary. Tie bank’s obligation to pay a conforming draw on a letter of credit is independent of the benefjciary’s performance of the underlying contract for which the letter of credit was issued and the bank’s ability to recover its reimbursement claim against the buyer/letter of credit applicant. Tie bank must pay the benefjciary upon the presentation of all of the documents required by a letter of credit, regardless of any contractual dis- pute between the seller and buyer and/or the bank’s inability to obtain payment of its reimbursement claim. In addition, if the bank rejects a benefjciary’s presentation of conforming documents, the bank is in breach of its obligation to pay on the letter of credit and is subject to the benefjciary’s assertion

• f a wrongful dishonor claim.

the Facts of the all american semiconductor case On April 25, 2007, (the “petition date”), All American Semi- conductor and its affjliates fjled their Chapter 11 petitions with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. In April 2009, the bankruptcy court approved the creditors’ committee’s Chapter 11 plan of liqui- dation, which transferred all preference claims to a liquidat- ing trust created under the plan. Tiat same month, the liquidating trustee commenced a law- suit against Samsung Semiconductor Inc. (“Samsung”) to recover, as preferences, certain payments by All American Semiconductor totaling approximately $4.9 million that Samsung had received during the 90-day period prior to the petition date. Samsung fjled an answer to the complaint, asserting several defenses, including the subsequent new value defense. Samsung claimed, as new value, approximately $4 million of new goods that Samsung had sold and delivered to All American Semiconductor subsequent to the alleged preferential payments. Tie problem with Samsung’s subsequent new value defense was that Samsung was the benefjciary of a standby letter of credit that Harris Bank had issued at the request of All Amer- ican Semiconductor. Harris Bank’s reimbursement claim against All American Semiconductor for letter of credit pay- ments was secured by cash collateral (funds in a bank account) that All American Semiconductor had pledged to Harris

• Bank. Shortly before the petition date, Samsung drew on the

letter of credit and applied the payment received from Harris Bank toward certain invoices comprising Samsung’s claimed new value. Harris Bank then set ofg its secured reimburse- ment claim against All American Semiconductor, arising from its $1 million payment to Samsung, against the $1 mil- lion of All American Semiconductor’s cash collateral pledged to Harris Bank. Tiere was no question that Samsung’s receipt of payment for its proper letter of credit draw was not subject to preference

• risk. However, that did not address Samsung’s preference risk

for the payments it had received from All American Semicon- ductor within 90 days of the petition date. Tie All American

the problem with samsung’s subsequent new value defense was that samsung was the beneficiary

• f a standby letter of credit.

3

B u s i n e s s C r e d i t J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

Semiconductor court addressed whether Samsung’s subse- quent new value preference defense included the invoices that were paid from the proceeds of Samsung’s draw on the letter

• f credit.

the All American Semiconductor court’s Decision Tie All American Semiconductor court ruled that Samsung’s new value defense was reduced by the letter of credit pay- ments Samsung had received from Harris Bank. Tie court relied on Section 547(c)(4)(B)’s requirement that any new value claimed by a preference defendant cannot be repaid by an otherwise unavoidable transfer by the debtor. Tie court noted that Harris Bank had set ofg the amount it had paid to Samsung ($1 million), in satisfaction of the bank’s reimbursement claim against All American Semiconductor, from All American Semiconductor’s bank account pledged to Harris Bank. Tie net efgect of Samsung’s receipt of payment from Harris Bank lefu the All American Semiconductor bank- ruptcy estate in precisely the same position that it would have been in if Samsung had not extended any new value to All American Semiconductor. As a result, All American Semi- conductor derived no benefjt from its receipt of $1 million of new goods from Samsung that Samsung had claimed as new

• value. Granting Samsung the benefjt of the new value defense

under these circumstances would have afgorded Samsung an undeserved windfall. Other courts have reached the same conclusion as the court did in All American Semiconductor. Tie United States Bank- ruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in In re Lease-A-Fleet, Inc., similarly ruled that a creditor’s receipt, prior to the bankruptcy, of payment on its standby letter of credit for certain of the new value that the creditor had previ-

• usly supplied to the debtor reduced the creditor’s subsequent

new value defense on a dollar for dollar basis. Tiere too the court relied on the fact that the letter of credit issuing bank, that was the source of payment of the new value claimed by the benefjciary/creditor, was fully secured by the debtor’s

• assets. As a result, the debtor received no benefjt from the

creditor’s new value, which was no difgerent than if the debtor had directly paid for the creditor’s new value. Tie All American Semiconductor court also relied upon the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in In re Formed Tubes, Inc. In that case, the creditor asserting the new value defense to reduce its pref- erence liability was also the benefjciary of a standby letter of credit that the debtor had caused to be issued in the creditor’s favor prior to the bankruptcy. However, the letter of credit issuing bank had an unsecured reimbursement claim against the debtor for payments made on the letter of credit. As a result, the creditor’s receipt of payment on the letter of credit had no impact on the debtor’s bankruptcy estate and, there- fore, the invoices paid from the letter of credit proceeds were properly included as part of the creditor’s new value defense. Tiat was in contrast to the diminution of the All American Semiconductor bankruptcy estate where Harris Bank had

• btained full reimbursement of the $1 million letter of credit

payment that Samsung had applied toward invoices claimed as part of Samsung’s new value defense. another aspect of the all american semiconductor case Tie trustee and Samsung were also at loggerheads over wheth- er Samsung’s subsequent new value defense was reduced by $198,969 of merchandise returns made by All American Semiconductor to Samsung during the preference period. Tie liquidating trustee argued that the returns reduced the amount

• f Samsung’s new value defense on a dollar for dollar basis

because Samsung had received the returns afuer delivering to All American Semiconductor the goods claimed as part of Samsung’s subsequent new value defense. Samsung rejected the trustee’s attempt to reduce Samsung’s new value defense because the trustee did not prove that any of the returns relat- ed to the goods comprising Samsung’s new value defense. Tie court refused to decide whether All American Semicon- ductor’s returns reduced Samsung’s subsequent new value defense and lefu the issue to be determined at trial. conclusion Tie holding in All American Semiconductor is a cautionary tale for trade creditors holding a standby letter of credit to pro- tect against the risk of nonpayment by a fjnancially troubled

• customer. When the letter of credit issuing bank’s reimburse-

ment claim against the debtor is fully secured by the debtor’s assets, the creditor loses its new value defense for the invoices paid as part of the debtor’s pre-petition drawing on the letter

• f credit.

An intriguing unanswered question is whether Samsung would have fared better by making its letter of credit drawing post-petition. Tie Delaware bankruptcy court, in In re Fried- man’s, Inc., ruled that a creditor’s subsequent new value defense includes new value that was paid post-petition. Could Samsung have relied on the Friedman’s case to argue that its new value invoices paid by a post-petition drawing on a letter

the All American Semiconductor court ruled that samsung’s new value defense was reduced by the letter of credit payments samsung had received from Harris Bank. the holding in All American Semiconductor is a cautionary tale for trade creditors holding a standby letter of credit to protect against the risk of nonpayment by a financially troubled customer.

4

B u s i n e s s C r e d i t J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

• f credit are still eligible new value? Time and the right case

might ofger an answer. A creditor can also avoid or reduce preference risk by obtaining a letter of credit that covers both nonpayment and preference

• risk. Unfortunately this is not necessarily so easy to obtain.

Bruce Nathan, Esq. is a partner in the New York City offjce of the law fjrm of Lowenstein Sandler PC. He is a member of NACM and is on the Board of Directors of the American Bankruptcy Institute and is a former co-chair of ABI’s Unsecured Trade Creditors Committee. Bruce is also the co-chair of the Avoiding Powers Advisory Committee working with ABI’s commission to study the reform of Chapter 11. He can be reached via email at bnathan@lowenstein.com. *Tiis is reprinted from Business Credit magazine, a publication of the National Association of Credit Management. Tiis article may not be forwarded electronically or reproduced in any way without written permission from the Editor of Business Credit magazine.