A recent decision from the Southern District of New York may reopen a door — which many had believed was all but closed — for disgruntled creditors seeking to challenge failed leveraged buyouts (“LBOs”) as fraudulent conveyances. In In re Lyondell Chemical Co., 2016 WL 4030937 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2016), District Judge Denise Cote reinstated an intentional fraudulent conveyance claim seeking to claw back $6.3 billion in distributions made to Lyondell Chemical’s shareholders through an LBO that failed quickly and dramatically.
Overview
On Monday, December 1, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014 (“FIBA” or “the Act”). The Act, which garnered bipartisan support as well as the approval of financial regulators, seeks to facilitate the recapitalization of financial institutions by reforming the bankruptcy process, while maintaining financial stability in U.S. markets. The Act now must be approved by the Senate and then signed into law by the President.
The Bottom Line:
In a unanimous decision (with Justice Kennedy not participating), the Supreme Court issued a decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 2012 WL 1912197 (U.S. May 29, 2012), (“RadLAX”) in which it held that section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a debtor to “cram down” a plan of reorganization that provides for the sale of encumbered assets free and clear of liens at auction without permitting the lienholder to credit bid at such auction.
The Bottom Line:
On April 9, 2008, in the M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. bankruptcy case pending in the Southern District of New York, Chief Judge Stuart M. Bernstein held that a seller of bank debt under the standard LSTA claims transfer documents transfers all of its rights except for those explicitly retained, including unmatured contingent claims, thus giving broad construction to the term “Transferred Rights” under the standard LSTA trade documents.
In the latest decision arising out of long-running disputes over confirmation of the Tribune Company’s Chapter 11 plan, the Third Circuit issued important new guidance concerning the enforceability of subordination agreements in cramdown plans, holding (1) that subordination agreements “need not be strictly enforced” in such plans, and (2) that the relevant comparison, for determining unfair discrimination, need not always be a comparison between the recovery of the preferred class and the dissenting class, but may sometimes entail a comparison between the dissenting class’s desired and act
In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.
General Legal Background
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Fifth Circuit recently held in RPD Holdings, L.L.C. v. Tech Pharmacy Services (In re Provider Meds, L.L.C.), No. 17-1113 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018), that a patent license that was not specifically listed on the debtors’ bankruptcy schedules was automatically deemed rejected where it was not assumed within 60 days of the cases’ conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7.
What Happened?
A key consideration for investors in securities of bankrupt issuers is the extent to which the securities received upon consummation of a Chapter 11 plan will be freely transferable. While the trading restrictions may not change an investor’s determination to, for instance, participate in a backstop arrangement, or to receive an amount of securities that would result in potential affiliate status, the investor’s compliance and back-office functions will be responsible for monitoring reporting and implementing trades, and the potential slip-ups are many and varied.