A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.
Background
A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.
Background
The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s opinion in Momentive Performance Materials Inc. v. BOKF, NA. BOKF and Wilmington Trust, indenture trustees for Momentive’s First Lien Notes and 1.5 Lien Notes (which we’ll refer to as the “Senior Notes”) respectively, each submitted certiorari petitions after the Second Circuit held that they were not entitled to receive make-whole premiums following Momentive’s bankruptcy.
What Is a Make-Whole?
Weil Summer Associate David Rybak contributed to this post
In Momentive Performance Materials, the Second Circuit declined to dismiss as equitably moot the appeals of certain noteholders.
Key Points
A binding contract by exchange of email did not arise where parties were simply exploring a potential deal.
Sale by auction is often appropriate where an asset is difficult to value.
Where no differential treatment of creditors, unfair harm requires that a decision does not withstand logical analysis.
The Facts
Investors may, for reasons outside of their control, find themselves with a financially distressed company in their portfolio and possibly in unfamiliar territory. Consequently, it is not just those investors who actively seek out opportunities within the distressed space who should be mindful of the implications of insolvency processes (most commonly administration which can often also be used as part of a wider restructuring).
Key points
Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.
A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.
Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.
Key points
Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)
There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate
The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful
The facts
Key points
Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators
Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”
Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances
The Facts