Unitek Global Services, Inc. (“Unitek” or the “Debtor”) filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 3, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
According to the Declaration of Andrew J. Herning, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Debtor, in Support of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions (the “Herning Declaration”), the Debtors are a “full service provider of technical services to customers in the wireless telecommunications, public safety, satellite television and broadband cable industries in the United States and Canada.”  While Unitek may not be a common household name, their customers are.  They include, among others, DIRECTV, AT&T, Comcast, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Time Warner Cable.
Events Leading to Bankruptcy
The Debtor is a in an extremely competitive market in which there are a small number of large customers.  This means that Unitek and its competitors are engaged in intense competition for the business.  While Unitek was operating successfully, it discovered in April, 2013, that certain employees had engaged in fraudulent activities, which impacted its revenue recognition.  Not only did this cost Unitek roughly $9 million to resolve, but it necessitated restating several years of financial statements and constituted events of default with some of Unitek’s creditors.  Unitek has suffered continual losses since that time.
Objectives in Bankruptcy

(posted 3 days 50 min ago)

One of the things Time Magazine recently chose to use its First-Amendment-protected freedom to accomplish was to find out from its readers "Which Word Should be Banned in 2015".   Promoting a speech ban seems like an incongruous agenda for an institution that is protected by the First Amendment, yet the article does not appear to have been conceived in a spirit of irony  -- although the exercise wound up as a kind of self-inflicted parody.

Time gave its readers a list of 14 candidates that included "kale", "disrupt", "influencer", "said no one ever" and ... "feminist".  I try to imagine the meeting at which the list was being drawn up and someone was proposing "feminist" and all I can think of is Ricky Gervais.  But it went on the list and a writer (named Katy Steinmetz -- imagine how this story goes if a man writes the article) generated the article summarizing the arguments to ban each offending word.   (To throw another log on the irony fire, Steinmetz wrote this article earlier in the year, snarking at other persons' efforts to ban words.)  Her campaign speech to ban "feminist" was:

Necessary and Proper
(posted 3 days 3 hours ago)

If you have decided to utilize the services of a debt management or debt consolidation company, keep in mind that you may be much better off consolidating your debt under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. You set the plan approved by the Court and make payments pursuant to a Federal Court order that, stops interest for unsecured creditors , stops late fees, and stops harassing telephone calls.
Contact the Office of John Rogers, Attorney at Law for a free initial consultation prior to signing up with the consumer credit counseling service and have a lawyer with extensive bankruptcy experience review your financial situation and advise you of the options available to you.
You can contact the Office of John Rogers, Attorney at Law at johnrogers@glasgow-ky.com or toll free at 1-888-651-9353 .
John Rogers, Attorney at Law is Board Certified – Consumer Bankruptcy Law – American Board of Certification

(posted 3 days 6 hours ago)

The headline for this post will be mysterious and perhaps slightly salacious in a general newsfeed, but bankruptcy experts will know it means the time is nigh in the 11th Circuit for lien strip-offs. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona, where the 11th Circuit allowed lien strip-offs of wholly underwater junior  mortgages in a chapter 7. The Supreme Court case of Dewsnup v. Timm would seem to hold otherwise, but the 11th Circuit ruled Dewsnup applied only to partially underwater mortgages. Hence, the 11th Circuit believe it was bound by its own pre-Dewsnup precedent allowing strip-offs for wholly underwater junior mortgages.
I like the 11th Circuit rule as a matter of policy, but I have to believe that as a matter of precedent, the Supreme Court is almost certain to reverse. I have to get back to work on some other things, but perhaps other Credit Slips bloggers might have more to say. Until then, SCOTUSBlog also has a summary.

Credit Slips
(posted 3 days 6 hours ago)

As previously discussed here and here, section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code offers special protection for licensees of intellectual property. When a debtor-licensor rejects an intellectual property license, section 365(n) allows the licensee to elect to retain its rights under the license without binding the licensor to any continuing obligations.

(posted 3 days 8 hours ago)

The ABI’s self-created commission to explore alterations of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is scheduled to deliver its report next month.  To the extent the recent public statements of its co-chairs are representative, the commission appears to continue to be adhering to its initial agenda of weakening secured creditor’ rights on the premise that, as one of them told the Wall Street Journal, there has been an "'unmistakable’ progression of secured lenders’ power in bankruptcy.” 
As I have repeatedly written, the word “unmistakable” is about the last one any unbiased observer would apply to claims that secured creditors have increased their advantage or unsecured creditors’ recoveries have declined meaningfully in recent decades.   

Necessary and Proper
(posted 3 days 9 hours ago)

Quantitative easing hasn't led to severe price inflation as critics feared Â-- but the large quantity of Treasury debt might.

(posted 3 days 11 hours ago)

Getting immediate protection from your creditors heads the list of goals for most bankruptcy filers.
But, if this isn’t your first bankruptcy case, do you get that protection?
What the automatic stay does

The Automatic Stay (or “Stay”) protects the bankrupt consumer from continuing collection actions by his or her creditors.  All creditors are required to cease all actions intended to collect a pre-petition debt from the Debtor.   See 11 United States Code section 362.
The stay  (1) halts a foreclosure sale, (2) stops and eviction, (3) stops an ongoing lawsuit, and (4) gives the Debtor some ‘breathing room’ and allows them to reorganize their financial affairs while under the protection of the bankruptcy court.

(posted 3 days 11 hours ago)

In “Creditors’ Committee in Revel AC Bankruptcy Challenges Final Approval of Debtor-in-Possession Financing,” posted on November 14, 2014 on Commercial Bankruptcy Investor, Chapter11Dockets.com discusses in detail an objection the committee in the Revel AC bankruptcy case.  The proposed financing presents several devices to maximize return for the DIP lenders at the expense of any possible return for unsecured creditors, such as:  roll-up of pre-petition debt effectively to be secured by previously unencumbered assets, including avoidance actions; excessive fees; inappropriate waivers of debtor’s rights; insufficient wind-down budget; overbroad releases; and too-aggressive default powers granted to DIP lender.  This article should be compared with an article posted on Commercial Bankruptcy Litigation, which discusses another Committee challenge to a proposed DIP facility, in the Kid Brands case.
Read the full article here.

(posted 3 days 12 hours ago)