Recent headlines have starkly illuminated the headwinds facing health care providers struggling to recover from a host of financial pressures. Many providers have resorted to filing for bankruptcy protection as a way, among other things, to right-size their balance sheets or effect a sale of their assets or businesses.
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to assume, assume and assign, or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases is an important tool designed to promote a "fresh start" for debtors and to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. Bankruptcy courts generally apply a deferential "business judgment" standard to the decision of a trustee or DIP to assume or reject an executory contract or an unexpired lease.
Courts sometimes disagree over whether provisions in a borrower's organizational documents designed to prevent the borrower from filing for bankruptcy are enforceable as a matter of federal public policy or applicable state law. There has been a handful of court rulings addressing this issue in recent years, with mixed results.
Key Points
A contractual waiver of an entity’s right to file for bankruptcy is generally invalid as a matter of public policy. Nonetheless, lenders sometimes attempt to prevent a borrower from seeking bankruptcy protection by conditioning financing on a covenant, bylaw, or corporate charter provision that restricts the power of the borrower’s governing body to authorize such a filing. One such restriction—a lender-designated “special member” with the power to block a bankruptcy filing—was recently invalidated by the court in In re Lake Mich.
More than a decade after the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, issues pertaining to recognition of a foreign debtor’s bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding under chapter 15 have, in large part, shifted from the purely procedural inquiry (such as the foreign debtor’s center of main interests, or “COMI”) to more substantive challenges regarding the limits, if any, that chapter 15 places on U.S. bankruptcy courts. But as demonstrated by the recent ruling in In re Creative Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation), 2016 BL 8825 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2016), U.S.
The chapter 15 cases of OAS S.A. ("OAS") and its affiliates represent the second time in less than one year that a U.S. bankruptcy court has been confronted with a serious challenge to the recognition of insolvency proceedings in Brazil by a group of U.S. creditors. The latest challenge focused on two separate lines of attack: (1) whether the "foreign representative" authorized to commence a chapter 15 case can be appointed by the company rather than the foreign insolvency court; and (2) whether Brazilian insolvency law is manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy.
Non-U.S. companies in the process of restructuring debt that includes one or more series of U.S. bonds must ensure that their restructuring plan and any securities issued as part of such plan comply with the requirements of U.S. securities law, in particular the registration requirements of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act").
In December 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor "under this title" to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.