The Changwon District Court in South Korea has this afternoon (23 March 2018) issued a comprehensive prohibition order (CPO) following the application of Sungdong Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Co. Ltd (Sungdong) to enter Chapter 11 Rehabilitation filed earlier this month.

The effect of the CPO is to provisionally prohibit all creditors of the yard from taking legal action in South Korea to secure and enforce their claims by attachment, arrest or foreclosing of their security interests.

Context

As we described in our client alert dated September 14, 2016, in the aftermath of the real estate downturn from 1989 to 1993, when real estate mortgage lenders began to contemplate making new mortgage loans, they sought to create new legal structures to prevent their prospective borrowers from filing for Chapter 11, and to ameliorate the adverse consequences, if such a filing were to occur.

In our client alert dated September 14, 2016, we discussed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, which refused to invalidate a bankruptcy filing made without the consent of its lender who held a “Golden Share” as void against federal public policy.

Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.

Although there has been much discussion of the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Marblegate, this article addresses a question other commentators have yet to tackle: namely, how the Second Circuit’s decision impacts the Trust Indenture Act’s protection of guarantee obligations included in an indenture. Below we provide our view on how Marblegate affects indenture guarantees. More specifically, we discuss how the decision is consistent with provisions of the TIA that expressly protect a noteholder’s payment rights under a guarantee.

Synopsis

On November 17, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that claims for “make-whole” amounts were valid and enforceable as “redemption premiums” under New York law despite the automatic acceleration of the underlying debt upon the issuer filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. See In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) (the “EFH Decision”).