In recent weeks, the dispute in Windstream’s bankruptcy between Windstream and its REIT spinoff Uniti Group over the lease transaction that ultimately led to Windstream’s chapter 11 bankruptcy has continued to escalate with Windstream filing an adversary complaint against Uniti. In its complaint, Windstream seeks to recharacterize the lease as a disguised financing alleging that the lease resulted in a long-term transfer of billions of dollars to Uniti to the detriment of Windstream’s creditors.
On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.
Intercreditor agreements--contracts that lay out the respective rights, obligations and priorities of different classes of creditors--play an increasingly important role in corporate finance in light of the continued prevalence of complex capital structures involving various levels of debt. When a company encounters financial difficulties, intercreditor agreements become all the more important, as competing classes of creditors seek to maximize their share of the company's limited assets.
On January 17, 2017, in a long-awaited decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp.,1 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Section 316 of the Trust Indenture Act ("TIA") does not prohibit an out of court restructuring of corporate bonds so long as an indenture's core payment terms are left intact.
It has been just over two months since one of South Korea's largest shipowners and operators, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (“Hanjin”), applied for court rehabilitation. On 1 September 2016, the Bankruptcy Division 6 of the Seoul Central District Court (the “court”) issued a decision accepting that application and commencing rehabilitation proceedings.
The Chinese Maritime Courts are not obliged to recognise and/or enforce foreign courts' orders, therefore Hanjin's creditors could still arrest Hanjin-related vessels in China if they have maritime claims (recognised under Chinese law) against the registered owners and/or bareboat charterers of the said vessels.
Container leasing companies and bunker suppliers could also file applications in order to request that the corresponding Chinese Maritime Courts order Hanjin to return the leased containers to Hanjin or the bunkers supplied to Hanjin in certain circumstances.
As you may be aware, one of South Korea's largest shipowners, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (“Hanjin”), has applied for court rehabilitation in Korea. On 1 September 2016 the Seoul Central District Court (Bankruptcy Division 6) issued a decision accepting that application and commencing rehabilitation proceedings.
Based on our experience in dealing with recent rehabilitations involving the Korean shipping industry and working closely with Korean lawyers, we set out below a few guidance points.
What is a Korean Court Rehabilitation?
On 21 October 2013, the financially troubled company Hainan PO Shipping applied for bankruptcy and winding up before the People’s Court of Hainan Yangpu Economic & Development Zone (“Yangpu Court”). The Yangpu Court approved the application on 31 October 2013, and the Court has since nominated the administrators of Hainan PO Shipping.
On December 5, 2013, Judge Steven Rhodes of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the city of Detroit had satisfied the five expressly delineated eligibility requirements for filing under Chapter 9 of the US Bankruptcy Code1 and so could proceed with its bankruptcy case.