On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey’s order confirming the Tribune Company’s chapter 11 plan.1 As a matter of first impression, the Court held that the prohibition against “unfair discrimination” in cramdown plans supplants the requirement that subordination agreements be enforced in bankruptcy. The decision comes more than eight years after Judge Carey initially entered the Bankruptcy Court order, and follows years of appeals by the senior noteholders.
In this series, we look at how various payment rights are treated in bankruptcy. A summary like this could not possibly address every right that might arise in any given bankruptcy case. We have omitted several of the Bankruptcy Code’s more esoteric legal protections and exceptions that arise in specific kinds of bankruptcy cases. When bankruptcy strikes, creditors should always consult a bankruptcy lawyer to understand what actions they need to take to preserve their rights and maximize their recovery.
The Basic Concept of a “Claim”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed that bankruptcy plans need not always recognize subordination agreements among creditors.
“Unfair discrimination is rough justice.
On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed lower court decisions rejecting Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s (“LBSF”) attempt to recover nearly $1 billion in payments to noteholders and enforcing certain Priority Provisions (defined below) that subordinated payments otherwise payable to LBSF under related swap transactions.
Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).
Following the global implementation of stay-at-home orders in response to the novel coronavirus, businesses suffered unprecedented declines in demand. As the United States struggles to reign in the contagion, a number of household names – from Chuck E. Cheese to J.C. Penney – have filed for bankruptcy. Logically, distressed M&A transactions should rise as corporations struggle under historic levels of debt, but who is poised to take advantage of a boom in distressed M&A, what are the new realities of distressed M&A and how will these transactions proceed?
In this series, we look at how various payment rights are treated in bankruptcy. A summary like this could not possibly address every right that might arise in any given bankruptcy case. We have omitted several of the Bankruptcy Code’s more esoteric legal protections and exceptions that arise in specific kinds of bankruptcy cases. When bankruptcy strikes, creditors should always consult a bankruptcy lawyer to understand what actions they need to take to preserve their rights and maximize their recovery.
The Basic Concept of a “Claim”
Restructurings, especially those involving multiple jurisdictions, are invariably complex matters. This CMS Expert Guide provides an overview of the various restructuring possibilities available in a large number of countries, allowing you to compare how the options are deployed in these jurisdictions.
We intend to update it periodically to reflect important changes as they happen.
If you need more information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Recently, in Artesanias Hacienda Real S.A. De C.V. v. North Mill Capital, LLC; Leisawitz Heller, the Third Circuit held that creditors can pursue claims of the bankruptcy estate that have been abandoned by the trustee.