Holding On To Reclamation Rights Under In re Reichhold Holdings
Section 546 of the Bankruptcy Code has long been considered a provision with all bark and no bite. Other than In re Phar-Mor Inc., the majority of bankruptcy court decisions concerning the priority of reclamation rights under § 546 (c) of the Bankruptcy Code versus the priority of a post-petition loan facility have concluded that the reclamation rights of sellers of goods are inferior to the rights of post-petition lenders, essentially rendering § 546 (c) a nullity where post-petition financing is required.
For example, under In re Dana Corp. and similar decisions, a post-petition security interest can extinguish reclamation rights simply by using the funds of the post-petition loan to pay off prepetition debt that was secured by a floating lien on the inventory. Under these decisions, the sellers of goods had diminished rights in bankruptcy such that a debtor could extinguish a seller’s reclamation rights that might otherwise have existed outside of bankruptcy. Given the impact of these decisions, many critics opined that § 546 (c) would essentially be rendered nugatory.3 However, the recent decision in Reichhold Holdings indicates that this area of law is simply premature and will likely be the subject of litigation for years to come.
Rights of Reclamation under the UCC
Generally, in states that have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC),4 under § 2-702 of the UCC a seller of goods who sells goods to a third party, on credit, obtains a right to reclaim such goods under state law if the seller makes a demand within 10 days after receipt of goods. The official comments to subsection (2) note: “Subsection (2) takes as its base line the proposition that any receipt of goods on credit by an insolvent buyer amounts to a tacit business misrepresentation of solvency and therefore is fraudulent as against the particular seller.”5
Thus, the UCC makes it clear that the drafters intended to protect sellers from buyers who were aware of their ailing financial condition yet chose to continue to buy goods on credit without considering the repercussions of their actions on third-party sellers. By providing an immediate remedy to sellers, this provision encourages sellers to continue to do business with buyers who might otherwise be heading toward bankruptcy. It also helps protect sellers of goods by providing them with an immediate remedy in the event that they discover a buyer is insolvent.
About McDonald Carano
McDonald Carano has been shaping Nevada’s legal, business, and policy landscape since our founding in 1949. With more than 60 lawyers and government affairs professionals working from offices in Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City, we are Nevada’s law firm for business. Our local, national and global clients include Fortune 500 corporations, fast-growth and mid-market companies, entrepreneurs and startups, non-profit organizations, government entities, and high-net-worth individuals. Our attorneys deliver cross-discipline, one-stop, commercial law and government affairs counsel. Our dedication to clients, innovative thinking and practical solutions based in sound business and legal judgments are at the heart of our practice. For more information, please visit mcdonaldcarano.com or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
You have chosen to send an email to McDonald Carano. The sending or receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create an attorney-client relationship. If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you.
I have read this and want to send an email.