Shumaker Manufacturing

A Legal & Industry Review


Bracing for Takata Bankruptcy

The Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2017 edition, reports that Takata Corporation is preparing a bankruptcy filing, as soon as next week, in both Japan and the United States.  A key reason for the United States’ Chapter 11 filing is to utilize the strategic tool, a Section 363 sale, to consummate a “takeover” deal with rival Key Safety Systems, Inc.  Section 363 allows a Chapter 11 debtor to sell all of its assets to a third party, free and clear of certain liabilities.  Key issues  for creditors in the Chapter 11 case will include the allocation of the purchase price paid; the liabilities assumed by Key Safety Systems, Inc.; and the allocation and impact of the recall costs among Takata’s stakeholders, including the affected automakers.

We hope you found this useful and informative.  Please contact us if you have any questions about this or any other matter. Takata[1]

 


Globaladvocaten Welcomes New UK Member – Field Seymour Parkes, LLP

We welcome Field Seymour Parks, LLP as a new member of Globaladvocaten, ranked by Chambers Global 2017 as a leading law firm network, which is a collaboration among 24 independent law firms. The network includes over 800 lawyers working out of 41 cities in 27 countries. Member firms are based in major cities worldwide including Amsterdam, Barcelona, Charlotte, Dublin, Geneva, Istanbul, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Paris, Prague, Rome, San Francisco, Vienna, Warsaw and Zurich.

Globaladvocaten is a premier resource for Shumaker, enabling us to add value for our clients through the Eurozone. Shumaker is proud to be a member of Globaladvocaten and David Conaway enjoys assisting Globaladvocaten as a board member.

logo[1]                 GA Logo

 


Recent Article on the Nuts and Bolts of Section 503(b)(9) Claims in Chapter 11 Cases

Conaway_David_LI


The so-called 20-day administrative priority claim (set forth in Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code) is perhaps the best remedy available to vendor creditors in Chapter 11 cases.

In 2005, Congress amended the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and added Chapter 15 (cross-border insolvency), and the game-changing Section 503(b)(9) claim, which functionally eclipsed the reclamation claim. At its essence, Section 503(b)(9) claims allow vendors to convert a portion of their pre-petition claims (arising from goods delivered within 20 days prior to filing) from near valueless general unsecured claims to administrative priority claims, which are generally paid in Chapter 11 cases. Section 503(b)(9) claims have had a major impact on Chapter 11 cases because they add a significant financial obligation that must be paid. Naturally, Chapter 11 debtors and their lenders have challenged such claims to minimize the financial impact of Section 503(b)(9). Since 2005, there have been a number of reported and unreported cases that provide guidance on successfully utilizing the remedy.

Below is an excellent article by my partner David Grogan on the nuts and bolts of Section 503(b)(9) claims in Chapter 11 cases.

We hope you find this useful and informative. Please contact us if you have any questions about this, or any other matter.

The Chapter 11 Vendor Game Changer: Section 503(b)(9) Claims

 


Client Alert: Federal Court Orders CAFOs to Report Air Emissions

On April 11, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down a U.S. EPA rule exempting concentrated animal feeding operations (“CAFOs”) from requirements under CERCLA that mandate reporting of releases of hazardous substances in excess of a reportable quantity to the National Response Center. The exemption from release reporting had been on the books since 2008. Continue reading


United States Supreme Court Limits Sanctions Against Tire Manufacturer in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger (April 18, 2017)

banner_h120[1]

In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, plaintiffs asserted a products liability claim against Goodyear for a tire failure. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, after which plaintiffs discovered that Goodyear did not disclose internal testing reports that were responsive to discovery requests prior to the settlement. Continue reading