There have been several so-called "uptier" transactions over the last several years, where lenders have provided "rescue financing" to a distressed company senior in priority to existing debt. While there has been significant commentary about whether such financings are contractually permitted, there have been few decisions analyzing challenges to such transactions.¹ In Bayside Capital Inc. v. TPC Group Inc.

Over the past decade, there have been several court decisions on whether particular make-whole premiums should be allowed as part of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy, such as Momentive,¹ EFH,² American Airlines,³ and Ultra Petroleum.⁴ Although these decisions and others set forth the legal standards to be applied and resolved the specific claims at issue, the decisions provide little guidance or clarity on the allowability of make-whole claims in future cases.

The dueling judicial decisions in Mexico and the United States regarding the proposed restructuring of the Mexican enterprise, Vitro S.A.B., de C.V., and its affiliates (collectively, “Vitro”), and its strong opposition by a group of U.S. noteholders, became must-read thrillers for finance and bankruptcy professionals, as well as distressed-debt investors.

Many companies are currently experiencing dramatic reductions in revenues due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Such companies (along with their investors and creditors) are justifiably concerned that they may need to restructure and even potentially seek bankruptcy protection. Below is a list of items that any potentially distressed company should attend to as soon as possible to increase the likelihood of obtaining the most favorable outcome under the circumstances.

I. Focus on Cash

In the Chapter 11 case of Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc. (the “Debtor”), a New Jersey bankruptcy court recently issued an opinion1 extending to trademark licensees certain protections already expressly available to other intellectual property licensees under Bankruptcy Code § 365(n).2 In addition, the Court held that the Debtor could not sell its assets free and clear of such protections and found that any future royalties under the license agreement belonged to the Debtor’s estate.3

On June 9, 2014, in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.),1 a much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court addressed how bankruptcy courts should adjudicate so-called Stern claims. Stern claims are “core” claims over which bankruptcy courts have statutory authority to enter orders and judgments,2 but which authority the Supreme Court previously held in Stern v. Marshall3 was not permitted (at least with respect to certain issues) under Article III of the United States Constitution.

In Jaffé v. Samsung Electronics Company, Limited,1 a Court of Appeals protected the rights of cross- licensees of a German debtor’s American patents by applying the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, instead of inconsistent German law. Specifically, in Chapter 15 U.S. bankruptcy proceedings ancillary to German insolvency proceedings, the administrator notified certain cross-licensees of the debtor’s patents that their cross-licenses were not enforceable under German law. The cross-licensees argued that under U.S. law, they had the option to retain their rights under the cross-licenses.

On November 15, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Glenn, J.) issued a lengthy decision¹ in the Chapter 11 case of Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”). An important holding contained in this decision is that the bankruptcy claims of holders of notes issued with original issue discount (or OID) for tax and accounting purposes in a “fair value” exchange (an exchange for notes with a lower face amount) need not be reduced by any unaccreted OID^.2  

On May 13, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to review the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit¹ that had held that a security interest may extend to the “proceeds” of the future transfer of a license holder’s interest in its Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) broadcast license and that, under applicable state law, the security interest attached upon execution of the security agreement, despite the fact that the parties did not contemplate a transfer of the license at that time.