Ohio Practical Business Law : Columbus Ohio Business Lawyer & Attorney : Teri Rasmussen : Plunkett Cooney Law Firm : Commercial Law, Creditors, Business Formation : Columbus, Central Ohio

Because getting a judgment and actually getting paid on the judgment are two very different things, it may be worthwhile to "think outside the box" when it comes to finding ways to collect.  If a judgment debtor has patents or other intellectual property, has money coming to them through a bequest under a will, or owns other intangible property, a creditor's bill  may just be the creative solution.

In Ohio, a creditor’s bill action may be used to reach assets of a judgment debtor that might not otherwise be difficult to subject to judgment liens, executions, or garnishment. In re Estate of Mason, 109 Ohio St.3d 532, 849 N.E.2d 998, 2005-Ohio-3256.  It is authorized by Ohio Rev. Code §2333.01 which states in its entirety: 

Equitable and certain other assets

When a judgment debtor does not have sufficient personal or real property subject to levy on execution to satisfy the judgment, any equitable interest which he has in real estate as mortgagor, mortgagee, or otherwise, or any interest he has in a banking, turnpike, bridge, or other joint-stock company, or in a money contract, claim, or chose in action, due or to become due to him, or in a judgment or order, or money, goods, or effects which he has in the possession of any person or body politic or corporate, shall be subject to the payment of the judgment by action.

 Essentially, a creditor’s bill allows a creditor to reach more intangible property interests of the debtor not amenable to garnishment or attachment. Among other sorts of interests, this includes:

• Interests of heirs and legatees. In re Estate of Mason, 109 Ohio St.3d 532, 849 N.E.2d 998, 2005-Ohio-3256.
• Patents in which creditor does not have a security interest. Olive Branch Holdings, L.L.C. v. Smith Technology Dev., L.L.C. , 181 Ohio App.3d 479, 909 N.E.2d 671 (10^th App. Dist. 2009)
• Fees to be received by attorney for legal services provided. Huntington Center Associates v. Schwartz, Warren & Ramirez, 2000 WL 1376524 (10^th App. Dist.).
• Breach of contract claim. Lakeshore Motor Freight Co. v. Glenway Ind., 2 Ohio App.3d 8, 440 N.E.2d 567 (1^st App. Dist. 1981).

So how does one put this sort of remedy in motion?  First, it is important to understand that judgment on the underlying claim must have been obtained.  Then the judgment creditor must file a new lawsuit against the judgment debtor and any third party holding the intagible property owned by the judgment debtor.

The creditor's bill complaint must state that the debtor does not have sufficient personal or real assets subject to execution and levy to satisfy the creditor's outstanding judgment.  This is more than a technicality.  To be successful, a creditor must in fact present evidence of the debtor's insufficient assets and this must be something more than counsel's recitation of facts such as the debtor no longer being in business and conclusory statements.   Graybar Electric Co., Inc. v. Keller Electric Co., Inc., 113 Ohio App.3d 172, 680 N.E.2d 687 (9^th App. Dist. 1996).  Thus, for best results, it may be wise to take a judgment debtor examination or attempt garnishment before filing this sort of action. 

Once the creditor's bill case is filed, the creditor then obtains a lien on the intangible property sought and will have priority over other judgment creditors who have not pursued collection of their judgment in this way.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm finishing up my recent series of posts on cognovit notes and judgments with a summary of the key things to know about cognovit notes and judgments in Ohio.   

     1.  Shortcut to Judgment.  Cognovit notes provide a shortcut to judgment, allowing a creditor to take a judgment immediately (and I mean within MINUTES) of the filing of the Complaint.  No advance notice to the debtor required.  For more information on how this works, visit my Cognovit Promissory Notes Explained post.

     2.   Few States Allow.  Ohio is one of only a handful of states permitting cognovit judgmentsnat all. In fact, as far as I know, they are only enforceable in OHIO, Pennsylvaina, Maryland, Virginia and Delaware.  Visit An Examination of Confession of Judgment Statutes in the Mid-Atlantic States  for a very concise and specific summary of what is required in each of these states for a valid cognovit note.  In Indiana, it's even a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by a $1,000 fine or 180 days imprisonment)  to include cognovit language in a promissory note or to try to enforce a cog taken somewhere else like, say, Ohio. Indiana Code 34-54-4-1  

     3.  Commercial Deals ONLY.  Cognovit notes are valid ONLY in commercial transactions involving businesses and are not enforceable with respect to consumer obligations.   Ohio Rev. Code 2323(E).  

>>>>>>      The rest of these points pertain ONLY with respect to Ohio cogs.  

     4.   Follow the Statute.   DO NOT VARY IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTORY COGNOVIT WARNING.  The cognovit warning  should appear IMMEDIATELY (and I mean WITHOUT ANYTHING IN BETWEEN)  above(preferably) or below the signature line and should look EXACTLY like this for best results:

WARNING – BY SIGNING THIS PAPER YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO NOTICE AND COURT TRIAL.  IF YOU DO NOT PAY ON TIME, A COURT JUDGMENT MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND THE POWERS OF A COURT CAN BE USED TO COLLECT FROM YOU RGARDLESS OF ANY CLAIMS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST THE CREDITOR WHETHER FOR RETURNED GOODS, FAULTY GOODS, FAILURE ON HIS PART TO COMPLY WITH THE AGREEMENT, OR ANY OTHER CAUSE.   

     5.  Confession of Judgment Must Also Be included.  Do not forget to include the enabling language authorizing confession of judgment within the body of the promissory note, guaranty or other instrument.  If the enabling language is not included, the instrument will still be enforceable but will not be any good for taking a cognovit judgment.  Klosterman v. Turnkey-Ohio, L.L.C., 2009-Ohio-2508 (10th App. Dist.).   The statute does not specify the exact language to be used, but over time certain language has customarily come to be used in virtually every Ohio commercial note or guaranty.

      6.  Enforceable Where Signed or Where Maker Located. Cognovit judgments must be taken in (A) the County in which the cognovit note was signed; OR (B) the County in which the individual resides or the business has its principal office.  Ohio Rev. Code 2323.13(A)

     7.   Not Required to Use Business Courts.  At least for now, the existence of commercial law dockets/business courts does not require cognovit judgments to be taken by a judge of that docket  GLIC Real Estate Holding, L.L.C. v. 2014 Baltimore-Reynoldsburg Road, L.L.C., 906 N.E.2d 517, 2009-Ohio-2129 (Common Pleas-Franklin Cty)

     8.  Signing Cog Doesn't Create Attorney-Client Relationship.  No attorney client relationship is established when an Ohio attorney signs a cognovit answer on behalf of a defendant.  It is simply a ministerial act and does not subject the attorney signing the answer to any claim of unethcialconduct..  Opinion 93-3 Ohio Supreme Court Board of Commisioners on Greivancxes and Discipline,  Dibenetto v. Miller, 180 Ohio App.3d 69, 2008-Ohio-6506 (1st App. Dist.).

     9. Copies May Do.  While many Ohio courts may require or at least expect the original promissory note containing the cognovit provision to be produced, the statute does permit use of a copy.  Ohio Rev. Code 2323.13(A).  Good luck with that one - call me when you're able to get the judgment without showing the original of the note to  the judge.

       10.    Getting a Do-Over.  It does not take as much to open up a cognovit judgment thorugh a Rule 60(B) motion as it does with rexpect to other judgments.  However, you have to at least show that a meritorious defense exists, at least in theory.  Visit my previous post What It Takes to Open Up a Cog Judgment to find out more details.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

When I hear the word "indulgences", my mind immediately goes to something "sinful" and well, probably fun.  In this case, however, I'm talking about  that ubiquitous provision found in loan documents designed to allow lenders to continue to hold borrowers and gurantors liabile notwithstanding the lender's failure or inability to abide by the letter of the loan documents or to exercise all or some subset of its rights upon default in a manner saitsfactory (usually with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight) to the borrower and/or gurantor.  Does this stuff really worK?   

Suppose you have this deliquent borrower -  let's call him "B"  -- on a promissory note (though it could be any obligation) and collateral not worth enough to pay you off in full.  But then you also have this guarantor -- let's call him "G".  Somewhere along the line one of your folks messed up in that "commercial reasonable sale" thing that's supposed to happen when you repossess and liquidate collateral.  Or maybe you let a financial covenant default here and there pass for the time being.  Or perhaps you just extended the maturity date or went interest only for B for a while.  Question is whether you're still OK because you can hold G - who does have assets - liable for the obligation.

Most, if not all, bankers and their counsel would say "yes" because both the UCC and our loan docs say we can.  Which is why  Huntington National Bank v. Wallace, 2009 WL 2023891 (N.D. Ohio 2009) -- now on appeal to the Sixth Circuit and the subject of my last post -- is an important case to watch. 

In a nutshell, the Bank had allowed advances to the Borrower to fund draws on letters of credit in excess of a  "maximum amount" specified in the loan documents and the Bank was pursuing one of the guarantors,  Bank took cognovit judgment and guarantor sought relief from judgment   Federal district court held that the indulgence clause was not sufficient to preclude relief from judgment.

Initially, as a lender-oriented attorney, the case concerned me. It seemed to suggest that lenders permitting any sort of modification -- other than the most vanilla extension of time sort --would now be accepting a substantially greater risk that such forbearance would relieve any guarantor not explicitly consenting from liability. In addition, the manner in which it brushed aside the waivers contained in the “indulgence” clause as inapplicable sent a cold shiver down my spine.   And the logic of the ruling would be applicable not just to cognovit notes, but really any sort of obligation.  So, taken as a whole, if upheld by the Sixth Circuit, the decision seemed likely to convince many lenders that it simply was not in their best interests to work with delinquent borrowers.

As I've thought about it more, however, I've begun to think this decision makes more sense and is less alarming than I had first surmised.  The decision in fact makes an important distinction between the nature and extent of the obligation intended by the parties to be guaranteed on the one hand and mistakes and errors made by the lender in enforcing the guaranty on the other.  In this particular case, the guaranty was never intended to be unlimited - there was a clearly stated unambiguous cap on the amount of credit to be extended to the borrower at particular times.  In continuing to permit advances to fund letter of credit draws, the Bank exceeded this previously agreed limitation on the amount for which the guarantor had accepted responsibility for seeing was paid.

When read closely, the language itself – and certainly the concept originally underlying inclusion of such a clause – is about the consequences of the Bank’s inaction or failure to take appropriate steps to ensure the obligation guaranteed could be satisfied from sources other than the guarantor. When viewed from this perspective, the decision leaves largely intact a lender’s ability to rely on indulgence clauses with respect to events and actions occurring during the course of a workout situation.  It is only a lender’s decision to continue extending credit to the borrower beyond an explicitly agreed–upon point that becomes a problem.

Granted, the ruling is still worrisome.  In asset-based lending, a lender may unknowingly extend credit beyond the “availability” permitted pursuant to a borrowing base calculation formula.  And in the Wallace case, the Bank was obligated to honor letters of credit previously issued and really did not have the ability to refuse to make further advances.

What also makes things a bit problematic for me in this case is that the “cap” in question was only for a very short, almost temporary, period of time and was substantially less than it was at other times.  Had the events occurred but a couple of months earlier or later, the cap would not have come into play.

For me, the take-away lessons for now from this case are:

•  If at all possible, obtain guarantor consent to any modifications or waivers at the time the modifications are made or waivers given.  I already do this anyway, but now it will be even more important.
•  If a lender wants the guaranty to truly be unlimited and/or cover over-advances, the guaranty should say so very explicitly.
• Problems arising due to lack of perfection, release of collateral or other obligors, or other events and circumstances connected with an aspect of the lending relationship that do not pertain to the amount advanced are probably still within the protection of indulgence clauses.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

How would Peanuts’ Linus manage without his trusty security blanket? Depending on the result, the Sixth Circuit reaches in a recently appealed cognovit judgment case, financial institutions such as banks and others relying on cognovit notes, and perhaps ordinary promissory notes as well, may well have to face a similar question.

Every guaranty I’ve seen has some variation of what is sometimes called an “indulgence” clause. These provisions essentially say that a guaranty remains in effect even if the Bank waives a default by the primary obligor or errs in its collection efforts. Now a federal district court, applying Ohio law, has snatched this security blanket away, saying that such a clause does not allow the lender to ignore the credit terms of a loan with impunity. 

In Huntington National Bank v. Wallace, 2009 WL 2023891 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (Case No.09CV408, Carr, J.), decided August 19, 2009, the defendant guarantor alleged he had a meritorious defense justifying vacation of the cognovit judgment taken against him. His argument was that because the Bank made a “material alteration” to the terms of his guaranty by continuing to allow advances even though the amount outstanding exceeded the prescribed “maximum amount”, his guaranty obligation was rendered invalid. 

The Bank has now appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit (Case No. 09-4172).  If upheld, the decision may have far reaching consequences beyond cognovit notes.  The district court decision suggests that the ONLY modification to an obligation that a lender may comfortably do is an extension of time unless the guarantor agrees.  It could also be taken as meaning that even if the guarntor consents, such modifications would release the guarantor of all liability

Factual Background

The underlying fact scenario is a common one. In August 2007, a company known as Bellepointe entered into a First Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement “Loan Agreement”) with the Bank. The Loan Agreement governed three separate obligations – a term note, a line of credit, and a “Guidance Line” involving draws on letters of credit. Michael Wallace (“Wallace”), the father of the company’s owner, executed a guaranty of Bellepointe’s indebtedness to the Bank; the son also executed a guaranty, but the case pertains only to the father’s guaranty.

The guaranty excluded any liability for the term loan indebtedness and also capped the maximum amount of liability with respect to the Line of Credit. The crux of the case focused on the proper interpretation of certain language found in the Loan Agreement and the Guidance Line cognovit note, to wit: 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the maximum amount available under the Guidance Line shall be as follows:

from the date hereof through and including 11/30/07 - $865,000

12/1/07 through and including 12/31/07 - $250,000

1/1/08 and thereafter - $550,000      

These provisions obviously required a substantial reduction in the amount outstanding as of December 1, 2007. It is not altogether uncommon for lines of credit to require a substantial reduction in the amount outstanding at least once a year. 

Procedural History

Procedurally, the case is a bit complicated. Apparently there was some discussion back and forth between Wallace and the Bank concerning his liability prior to any lawsuit being filed. When those talks broke down, Wallace filed a declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of Ohio federal district court against the Bank on February 11, 2009. Two days later, the Bank took a cognovit judgment against Wallace in Lucas County Common Pleas Court. The Bank said it had no knowledge of the declaratory judgment action when it took the cognovit judgment. 

Wallace promptly removed the state court cognovit judgment action to federal district court for the Northern District of Ohio, apparently on diversity grounds that he was a resident of Florida, and sought relief from judgment. After the Northern District federal court granted the motion to vacate the cognovit judgment, the Bank appealed to the Sixth Circuit where the case is now pending. It appears likely that the Southern District declaratory judgment action will be consolidated with the pending Northern District cognovit action.

The Decision 

Wallace alleged that the Bank continued to make advances on the Guidance Line in December 2007 even though Bellepointe had failed to reduce the amount outstanding as required.  Consequently, he contended that the Bank’s actions caused a “material alteration” in the nature of his guaranty obligation, thereby relieving him of liability under his guaranty. The Bank did not dispute that the advannces exceeded the "maximum amount."  However,it countered by pointing out that its loan documents had one of those “indulgence clauses” which stated:

Guarantor hereby promises that if one or more of the Obligations are not paid promptly when due, he will pay the Obligations to Bank, irrespective of any action or lack of action on the Bank's part in connection with the acquisition, perfection, possession, enforcement or disposition of any or all Obligations....   Guarantor agrees that no extension of time, whether one or more, nor any other indulgence granted to [sic] Bank by [sic] Debtor, or to any other gurantor, or any of them, and no omission or delay on Bank's part in exercising the right against, or in taking any action to collect from or pursue Bank's remedies against Debtor or any other guarantor, or any of them, will release, discharge or modify the duties of guarantor hereunder.

In addition, the Bank insisted that it was obligated to pay the draws on outstanding letters of credit in any event and that the definition of “advances” used in the line of credit differed from the definition of “maximum amount available” for precisely this reason. It also argued that the “indulgence” provisions in Wallace’s guaranty allowed it to ignore Bellepointe’s default in any event.  

So what happened? The federal district court agreed that the provisions of the loan documents did allow the Bank to continue making advances in December 2007. However, the court also noted that “Wallace’s burden is only to allege a meritorious defense, not to prove that he will prevail.” It went on to say:

Even if Wallace had initially failed to allege sufficient facts to support his defense, he has subsequently submitted an affidavit describing the above referenced facts, Wallace alleged sufficient facts for this court to evaluate whether his defense is meritorious.

And the reason? The Court cited Toland v. Key Bank of Wyoming, 847 P.2d 540 (1993) and Frost National Bank v. Burge, 29 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. App. 2000) for the proposition that “’indulgence’ is limited to extensions of time for payment and contract terms permitting indulgences do not waive suretyship defenses.” That’s it!  Really isn’t any further analysis or discussion. 

What IS interesting and informative are the briefs of the parties filed in the federal distriuct court case.  Leaving out exhibits, but including affidavits,here they are:

• Wallace's Motion to Vacate
• Bank's Responsive Memo in Opposition
• Wallace's Reply
• Bank's Sur-reply

Now I think the district court got this wrong and I’d really have appreciated a little further analysis of the pertinent provisions in the loan documents so I could fully understand the Court’s reasoning.  However, I also think the Sixth Circuit proceedings will be rather interesting to follow in the months ahead for lender attorneys everywhere. I’ll share my thoughts about the decision in more detail in my next post. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you have an ownership interest in an LLC or partnership and are having financial difficulties or if someone owes you money and you are concerned about getting paid back, then you want to know about "charging orders".  A charging order is a way for creditors to get to dividends, distributions, or other payments that would otherwise be paid to a person owing the creditor money.

The first thing to know about charging orders is that they don't come into play until AFTER the creditor has obtained a judgment.  In essence, a  charging order “charges” .the judgment debtor’s membership or partnership interest with the payment of the unsatisfied judgment previously obtained by the creditor.  It allows judgment creditors of a partner or LLC member that permits the creditor to receive the profits and distributions otherwise due to the judgment debtor partner or LLC member.  

Because Ohio has recently adopted the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, Ohio Rev. Code §1775.27 which governed charging orders with respect to partnerships has been replaced by Ohio Rev. Code §1776.50 .   Charging orders may also be obtained against members of a limited liability company organized in Ohio and are governed by Ohio Rev. Code §1705.19 which is much less detailed:

To obtain a charging order, the creditor need only file a motion in the case where the judgment was obtained and obtain the appropriate Order.  It is also advisable to include an Affidavit along with the Motion setting forth the amount of the judgment and the equity interest to be charged. Larson v. Larson, 2000 WL 1566522 (11^th App. Dist. 2000).  Ohio, unlike many states, does not make a charging order an exclusive remedy so the creditor may still pursue other remedies against the judgment debtor.

Once the charging order has been obtained, the creditor should specifically notify in writing the partnership and partners or the LLC and its members, as applicable.  The notice should inform them that no further payments should be made to the judgment debtor. The creditor may also proceed with a foreclosure sale of the equity interest and the charging order itself should contain language authorizing the creditor to do so.    

Charging orders are powerful weapons for creditors because if the creditor does foreclose on the partnership or membership interest, the purchaser will be entitled to the judgment debtor’s share of profits and distributions indefinitely, thus potentially resulting in a windfall to such a purchaser.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With all the speculation swirling around about whether the automakers (or at least GM or Chrysler) will eventually file bankruptcy, we've all overlooked one pretty important thing.  It's really not that hard to start involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against a company.  And, when it comes to Chrysler or General Motors, NOBODY has.

Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code requires only the following:

1.  To file an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 [no, you can't do an involuntary Chapter 13 against an individual], the target company  (or individual) must owe at least $13,475 in unsecured debt - THAT'S ALL!!!  This amount is indexed and will increase from year to year, but for right now, that's the number.

2.  If there are at least 12 unsecured creditors, then at least three (3) must join in the petition.  If there are fewer than twelve creditors, then a siingle creditor is all that is required.

3.  The unsecured creditors joining in the bankruptcy petition must have a claim that is not EITHER (A) "contingent as to liability"; or (B) "the subject of bona fide dispute".    If you've got a judgment, you're definitely in, but if you're a trade creditor and there's been no stink about the quality of what you've delivered, you're probably still "good to go", even if you don't have a judgment yet.

4.  There must be appropriate indicia of fincancial distress as demonstrated by EITHER

A.  A state law custodian or receiver has been appointed in the preceding 120 days;

OR

B.  The target company is not paying bona fide debts as they come due.

That's basically it.  For those wondering why this wouldn't also work for AIG, the answer is that  Section 109 of the Bankruptcy Code (when read in conjunction with section 303) prohibits an involuntary bankruptcy filing against banks and insurance companies, primarily because there are other specialized insolvency proceedings for these entities. 

It is of course possible that the Bankruptcy Court could require the posting of a bond by the petitioning creditors or by the target debtor (if it wants to regain possession of its assets), depending upon its view of whether the filing is frivilous or meritorious.  And the target debtor does have an opportunity to object and dispute the filing or to decide just to convert the whole thing to a voluntary Chapter 11 filing.  But the point is, it would be a start.... and no one seems to be biting.

Now, in real life, I usually try to discourage clients owed money from filing involuntary bankruptcy against another company.  Why share whatever assets and cash flow exist with other creditors according to the bankruptcy priority scheme when you might be able to do better through the "squeaky wheel' theory of interaction?  So maybe that's what's happening here too. 

Or perhaps the automakers are still paying all of their debts in a timely manner?  And so nobody actually has standing yet.

Generally, an involuntary proceeding works best when one is concerned about the activities of the management of the company or the possible dissipation of assets, either through legitimate activities by the target debtor, or as a result of less than honest behavior by those in charge.  Now I'm not suggesting for an instant that anything shady is going on in the corporate suites in Detroit, but i have to think that at least some folks are getting a little worried about where the automaker managment is taking these companies and what may be a deterioration in value of their assets.

So, again I come back to the question: if so many people think GM and Chrysler should be bankruptcy, why hasn't anyone actually done something about it?  And why NOT?

I don't have an answer - I just think it's an interesting question.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the economy definitely on the downturn, more and more businesses are facing financial distress and looking for a way out.  One of the ironies of the current commercial landscape is that Chapter 11 bankruptcy may just be TOO EXPENSIVE for many privately held companies.  Even a relatively small Chapter 11 proceeding in Central Ohio will likely require the upfront payment of a retainer of  $25,000 or more to the attorney filing the petition on behalf of the would-be debtor.  So are there any alternatives to just throwing in the towel?

One alternative growing in popularity in many states is the Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, known as an ABC for short.  For an excellent overview of how ABCs generally work, read Bob Eisenbach"s post "Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors:Simple as ABC?" on his In the (Red) blog on business bankruptcy.  In general, an assignment for the benefit of creditors is often an out of court process by which a financially distressed compnay can distribute its available assets to creditors.

However, ABCs are a pure creature of state law and so will work differently in each state which recognizes them.  Here are some links to how they work in some particular states:

• Illinois
• Georgia
• Delaware

In Ohio, however, ABCs are not really a viable option in most cases.  Why?  In a nutshell, they involve the Probate Court which is not likely to be viewed by either debtor or creditor as well versed in dealing with financially distressed businesses and offer little if anything which could not be more easily accomplished through use of a receivership.

Unlike Ohio receiverships, Ohio ABCs are governed by a relatively detailed statutory scheme found in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1313.  A company wishing to take advantage of the process must file a written assignment of its assets to a bondable assignee in the PROBATE COURT in the county in which the company's physical assets are located.  If there are no physical assets, then the filing must be  made in Franklin County, Ohio.

Once the chosen assignee has filed its bond (required to be accomplished within 10 days of the initial filing), the Probate Court appoints three individuals to act as appraisers to determine the value of the company's assets.  The assignee is required to file an inventory of all of the real and personal property of the company (including the values determined by the appraisers) within 30 days of his appointment.

Once the inventory has been prepared and filed with the Probate Court, the assignee may begin selling assets after publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.  However, the assignee cannot sell any item for less than two-thirds of its appraised value.  Any sale made must then be confirmed by the Probate Court.  The assignee is compensated for its efforts pursuant to Ohio Rev Code 1313.50 as follows:

• 6% of the first $1,000 of assets sold
• 4% of $1,000 to $5,000 of assets sold
• 2% of all proceeds above $5,000 

Creditors have six months from the time notice of the ABC has been published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county to file their claims with the Probate Court.

Overall, the ABC process in Ohio offers relatively few benefits to either debtor or creditors.  Unlike a bankruptcy or receivership, an ABC is solely a liquidation vehicle.  In addition, because of statutory requirements, it offers less flexibility in how any liquidation will be allowed to proceeed.  Finally, it is unlikely that either the distressed company or any creditor will feel especially comfortable about having to submit to the jursidiction of the local Probate Court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks