回购条款作为资管产品中常见的增信措施，资管新规对其有何影响？

资管新规之前，回购条款的效力得到法院普遍认可

回购条款本质上是一种逆向的、独立的交易行为，属于合同债权的范畴。其虽然具有一定的债权保障作用，但不构成债权担保的从属性，更不具有担保物权的优先受偿功能。因此，回购条款并非我国的法定担保形式。

资管新规之前，司法实践中，法院在考察当事人意思表示和内容的合法性基础上，一般会认可回购条款的合法有效性。

在“重庆国际信托股份有限公司与安徽三联实业发展有限公司等合同纠纷案”（〔2015〕渝高法民初字第00025号）中，法院认为，“《资产收益权转让及回购协议》系当事人的真实意思表示，不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，合法有效。结合信托公司提供的营业执照和金融许可证上载明的内容，信托公司签订的上述合同不违反金融监管部门核准的经营范围；且本案合同所涉的借款资金来源并不影响借款合同本身的效力。”

In an earlier blog piece we reported on the Third Circuit’s 2015 decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp. where the Court approved a settlement, implemented through a structured dismissal, which allowed junior creditors to receive a distribution prior to senior creditors being paid in full.

While secured creditors are entitled to special rights in bankruptcy, those rights may differ depending on whether creditors have a statutory or consensual lien on their collateral. This is primarily because section 552(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in part, that “property acquired by the estate or by the debtor after the commencement of the case is not subject to any lien resulting from any security agreement . . .

It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement.  However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?

It is said that muddy water is best cleared by leaving it be.  The Supreme Court’s December 4 decision to review the legality of Puerto Rico’s local bankruptcy law, the Recovery Act, despite a well-reasoned First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming the U.S. District Court in San Juan’s decision voiding the Recovery Act on the grounds that it conflicts with Section 903 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, suggests, at a minimum, that at least four of the Justices deemed the questions raised too interesting to let the First Circuit have the last word.

The Bankruptcy Code generally permits intellectual property licensees to continue using licensed property despite a licensor’s bankruptcy filing. However, because the “intellectual property” definition in the Bankruptcy Code does not include “trademarks,” courts have varied on whether trademark licensees receive similar protection. A New Jersey bankruptcy court recently grappled with this issue, concluding that trademark licensees may retain their trademark rights.

In a recent bench decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC et al., Case No. 14-22503-RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. August 26, 2014), the Bankruptcy Court considered bondholders’ right to recover make-whole premiums (premiums paid for early repayment of debt) upon the payment of accelerated debt following the borrower’s bankruptcy default. The Court ruled that the governing loan documents lacked specific language requiring a make-whole premium upon acceleration.

The Supreme Court has spoken once again on the limited jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts, adding to the understanding derived from Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990) and Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011). Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., 573 U.S.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals in In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768 (1st Cir. Apr. 11, 2014) recently ruled on a number of issues critical to valuing a secured claim in bankruptcy. Specifically, the court 1) endorsed the use of a “flexible approach” to value collateral under the circumstances of this case, 2) recognized that the date collateral should be valued is the lender’s burden to prove, and 3) confirmed that the pre-petition agreement’s default interest rate should generally be used to determine the post-petition interest rate.

Debtors must provide known creditors with actual notice of a claims bar date if they want the bar date to apply to those creditors. Such was the holding in In re Majorca Isles Master Association, Inc., Case No. 12-19056-AJC, Dkt. No. 222 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. March 27, 2014), where the bankruptcy court stated that when both a debtor and a creditor are “guilty in the handling of a claim and the [d]ebtor is aware of the creditor’s claim, then a tie goes to the creditor[,]” and the creditor’s claim will be allowed.