On August 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Kirschner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al. that certain syndicated term loans2 at the center of a transaction involving JP Morgan Chase and other banks were not securities under state law. While the Second Circuit did not foreclose the possibility that syndicated term loans could be securities under different circumstances,3 for now Kirschner cements the long-standing view -- following Banco Espanol de Credito v.

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 2017, in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court,1 the Supreme Court of the United States held that, in federal cases involving multiple plaintiffs, each plaintiff must establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over each of its claims.2 This severely limited the forums where plaintiffs could bring multiple-plaintiff cases against defendants.

On January 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled, in a 2-1 decision, in favor of the for-profit education company Education Management Corp.

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.

On May 22, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court, applying New York law, affirmed the dismissal of an action brought by Plaintiff noteholders against other noteholders under an indenture for approving amendments with which Plaintiffs disagreed.