In Morning Mist Holdings Limited v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Limited), Case No. 11-4376, 2013 WL 1593348 (2d Cir.

Numerous public-private partnerships have been formed in recent years as a device for funding infrastructure projects such as ports, toll roads and other transportation projects, sewer systems and parking garages. State and local governments, which have been strapped for cash to spend on infrastructure projects, have granted private entities the right to operate various infrastructure projects in exchange for a significant up-front payment and/or periodic payments.

What do the Pocahontas Parkway (Richmond, Va., vicinity), South Bay Expressway (San Diego, Calif.) and Indiana Toll Road have in common?

All are toll road projects that are currently undergoing or have been through a restructuring – or even bankruptcy. While traditional restructuring tools are certainly available in restructuring toll road deals, toll road restructurings also present unique considerations that warrant special attention.

In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on a case of farreaching importance for any party affected by a Chapter 11 plan in a business bankruptcy case. At stake is the longstanding expectation of secured lenders that they'll either be repaid or permitted to take their collateral by means of a credit bid; in other words, paying for the collateral with their lien.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC,1 has ruled that secured creditors do not have a right, as a matter of law, to credit bid their claims when their collateral is sold under a plan of reorganization. The Third Circuit held that secured creditors may be barred from credit bidding where a debtor's reorganization plan provides secured creditors with the "indubitable equivalent" of their secured interest in the assets. The court's ruling follows a similar ruling last year by the U.S.