1. Introduction

Recent cases interpreting Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) suggest that there are different standards for recognizing whether domestic entities and foreign entities have filed insolvency proceedings in the proper venue.

The Bankruptcy Abuse, Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was signed into law in the United States on April 20, 2005 and went into effect, for the most part, on October 17, 2005, created a new chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) – Chapter 15. Chapter 15 replaces and modifies the earlier Bankruptcy Code sections that dealt with multi-national insolvency proceedings.

On July 9, 2012, the Seventh Circuit decided in Sunbeam¹ that the rejection of a trademark license by a bankrupt trademark licensor does not deprive the trademark licensee of its right to continue to use the trademark, and disagreed with the 1985 Fourth Circuit decision in Lubrizol² that held to the contrary.³ In reaction to the Lubrizol decision, which held that the rejection of a license by a bankrupt licensor of intellectual property terminated the rights of the licensee, Congress enacted Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy

The Issue

The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.

On June 13, 2012, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”) published an opinion ruling on whether the Mexican Plan of Reorganization (the “Concurso Plan”) of the Mexican glass-manufacturing company, Vitro, S.A.B.

In our last issue, we reported that the Supreme Court was poised to resolve a split between judicial circuits over the right of a secured creditor to credit bid in a Chapter 11 plan context. Specifically, the Third, Fifth and Seventh Circuits split on the issue of whether a Chapter 11 plan can be crammed down over the secured lender’s objection, where the plan provides for the sale or transfer of the secured lender’s collateral with the proceeds going to the secured lender without the secured lender having the right to credit bid for its collateral up to the full amount of its claim.

Under European law, there are no general rules whit respect to the liability of a holding company for the debts of its insolvent subsidiary.

The Council Regulation (EC) N° 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings only provides for a common framework for insolvency proceedings in the European Union (EU). The harmonised rules on insolvency proceedings intend to prevent assets or judicial proceedings being transferred from one EU country to another for the purposes of obtaining a more favourable legal position to the detriment of creditors (“forum shopping”).

The Issue  

The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.  

Recent technological innovations and advancements in drilling and completion techniques have led to an unprecedented expansion of natural gas production by large and midsize exploration and production companies. This expansion created competition for wild cat acreage as well as producing properties, putting lessors and co-owners (the “non-operators”) at a distinct advantage in negotiating the terms of leases, farmout agreements and joint operating agreements (“JOAs”).

In what it described as “an easy decision,” the U.S. Supreme Court issued its eagerly anticipated decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC et al. v. Amalgamated Bank¹ on May 29, 2012.