Introduction

Say what you will about Detroit’s bankruptcy case, but when it is all said and done, the value for each of its participants most likely lies in the learning experience.   And, experience is sometimes a painful teacher.   One of the many take-aways is a framework for what constitutes a workable or“feasible” plan of adjustment (“Plan” or “Plan of Adjustment”) while recognizing the significant risk of implementation and post bankruptcy performance.

Detroit Highlights

Debt exchanges have long been utilized by distressed companies to address liquidity concerns and to take advantage of beneficial market conditions. A company saddled with burdensome debt obligations, for example, may seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with the same outstanding principal but with borrower-favorable terms, like delayed payment or extended maturation dates (a "Face Value Exchange"). Or the company might seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with a lower face amount, motivated by discounted trading values for the existing notes (a "Fair Value Exchange").

Pension issues in the American Airlines (AMR) bankruptcy¹ have resulted in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issuing new final regulations, effective November 8, 2012 (Final Regulations), which broadly impact all debtors facing underfunded pension plan obligations. The Final Regulations provide chapter 11 bankruptcy debtors facing distress terminations of their tax-qualified defined benefit pension plans with the additional option of amending the plans to eliminate accelerated payment options.

One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in Stern v. Marshall (June 23, 2011) that a bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to render final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s compulsory counterclaim against a creditor arising under common law, despite a statutory grant of jurisdiction.

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has held that a statutory safe harbor against constructive fraudulent conveyance actions under the Bankruptcy Code involving securities transfers does not apply to the private sale of securities, even when there are no allegations of illegal conduct or fraud involved in the underlying transaction.