On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) issued an opinion in In re TOUSA, Inc.,1 in which it affirmed the original decision of the bankruptcy court and reversed the appellate decision of the district court. After a 13-day trial, the bankruptcy court had found that liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the “Conveying Subsidiaries”) to secure new loans (the “New Term Loans”) incurred to pay off preexisting indebtedness to certain lenders (the “Transeastern Lenders”) were avoidable fraudulent transfers.
In the current economic climate, there has been increased interest from clients and their advisers in using offshore companies in cross-border restructurings. The use of offshore companies in restructurings is often driven by tax and structuring advice, where there is a desire to continue the group operating as a going concern and to achieve a favourable outcome for creditors (usually outside of formal insolvency proceedings).
Such companies can offer a number of advantages when used as part of a restructuring plan, including:
Key Issues
The transaction documents (eg ISDA, GMRA or prime brokerage agreements) for derivatives transactions (or other transactions involving netting provisions) are usually governed by English law or New York law. However, there are a number of local law issues which our clients should consider when proposing to enter into such transactions with offshore counterparties, including the following key issues:
Introduction
There has been a considerable amount of interest from clients recently on putting Jersey companies holding UK real property and other assets into English administration. Where a Jersey company and its creditors intend to rescue the company as a going concern, or English administration would achieve a better realisation for creditors than a désastre or a winding up, it may be advantageous to commence English administration.
The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.
In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.
To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.
To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.