The Bankruptcy Filing

Sale Hearing

On September 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of certain assets of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("LBHI") and Lehman Brothers Inc. ("LBI"),1 including those related to its Canadian Capital Markets and Investment Banking businesses, to Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"). The sale was approved despite the filing of over 80 objections raising a number of procedural and substantive issues. The Purchase and Sale Agreement was subsequently amended, and a clarifying letter filed, to address a number of the questions and concerns raised.

Capital call subscription credit facilities (each, a “Facility”) continued their positive momentum in 2013  and had an excellent year as an asset class. As in the recent past, investor (“Investor”) funding performance remained as pristine as ever, and the only exclusion events we are aware of involved funding  delinquencies by noninstitutional Investors (in many cases subsequently cured). Correspondingly, we  were not consulted on a single Facility payment event of default in 2013.

This paper is based on a comparative study of the reorganization provisions of Title 11 of the United States Code (“Chapter 11”) with the reorganization provisions of Mexico’s Ley de Concursos Mercantiles (“LCM”). Although based on a comparative study, this work does not intend to be a complete description of the analyzed statutes.

Judge Robert W. Sweet of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held inCT Investment v. Carbonell and Grupo Costamex, 2012 WL 92359 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2012), that comity should be extended to an order issued by a Mexican district court overseeing the Mexican bankruptcy proceeding (concurso mercantil) of Cozumel Caribe S.A. de C.V. (“Cozumel Caribe”) under Mexico’s Ley de Concursos Mercantiles (the “Mexican Business Bankruptcy Act”). In so holding, Judge Sweet stayed the U.S.

Founded in 1909, Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., is the leading glass manufacturer in Mexico, and one of the largest in the world, backed by more than 100 years of experience in the industry. It is headquartered in Monterrey, Mexico, and has subsidiaries in Europe and the Americas.

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.

Over the last several years, the number of Chapter 15 filings has continued to grow. One of the most prominent of these bankruptcy filings is the Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. case. When last we reported on theVitro case, the Texas bankruptcy court administering the Chapter 15 case had denied recognition to the Mexican restructuring plan of Vitro because the plan provided third party releases to non-debtors. See Vitro, S.A.B.: Bankruptcy Court Refuses to Recognize Mexican Concurso That Releases Claims Against Non-Debtors” (November 2012).

Those of us old enough to remember the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (or NAFTA) recall its promise of free movement of goods, services, persons, and capital between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and greater economic prosperity in each of these countries.

* This article was first published by INSOL International on March 16, 2015.

Upholds Extraterritorial Application of 11 U.S.C. § 362 Automatic Stay