On April 16, 2013, in Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.),1 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision informing fundamental concepts of cross-border insolvency law as implemented pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, the absolute priority rule requires a debtor’s creditors be paid in full before equity investors receive any value. However, existing equity investors occasionally seek to invest new money in the plan of reorganization process and argue that such investment justifies retention of equity in the reorganized company; equity which otherwise would pass to impaired creditors.
With an increasing number of businesses operating without regard to borders in today’s global economy, the importance of understanding Chapter 15 — the Bankruptcy Code provisions instructing the cooperation between the United States and courts of foreign lands involved in cross-border insolvency cases — has never been greater. This advisory will touch on the scope of Chapter 15 and its attempt to balance comity and domestic legal policy, as highlighted in the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro SAB de CV, No.
The secured lender industry experienced a collective sigh of relief on May 29 after the Supreme Court ruled in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank that credit bidding remains a viable option to protect collateral in a cramdown bankruptcy plan. Expressly inscribed in Sections 363(k) and 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, credit bidding has long been understood as a fairly uncontroversial right; until recently.
In our May 24 entry on this topic, the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund (the “Fund”) was battling numerous challenges to its Chapter 11 eligibility. The dispute revolved around whether the Fund, which provides benefits to government workers and retirees, was a “governmental unit” as defined by the Bankruptcy Code. In a decision from the bench on June 1st, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Faris affirmed his May 29th tentative ruling that the Fund is a “governmental unit” and, as such, is ineligible for Chapter 11.
On April 17, 2012, the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund (the “Fund”) became the first United States public pension fund to seek formal bankruptcy protection. The Fund, which provides retirement benefits to government employees of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the “Commonwealth”) a U.S. territory, listed $256 million in assets and $1 billion in liabilities and has alleged it will exhaust its claims paying ability by as early as 2014. ”
On May 4, 2012, the Delaware bankruptcy court inIn re KB Toys, Inc., et al. (KB Toys), handed down a thoughtful decision addressing the issue of whether impairments attach to a claim or remain with its seller. The KB Toys court held that “a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant. Disabilities attach to and travel with the claim.”
In the course of the next few weeks, Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Omega”), an international shipping enterprise, will find out if motions by certain of their lenders to, among other things, dismiss Omega’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings have been granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.1 If not, then Omega may be permitted to continue its attempt to reorganize its business under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently issued an opinion in In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC1 in which it found, among other things, that the assignment of voting rights from a junior creditor to a senior creditor pursuant to an intercreditor agreement was unenforceable. The opinion was rendered in connection with the court’s decision to confirm the plan proposed by the debtor, the owner of the W Hotel in Boston.
Background
The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).