Will Congress Finally Act?

This is the fourth in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. We discuss here the Commission’s efforts to require that debtor’s management act in a more transparent fashion. For copies of this or any prior articles about the Commission, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

This is the fourth in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. We discuss here the Commission’s efforts to require that debtor’s management act in a more transparent fashion. For copies of this or any prior articles about the Commission, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

Will Congress Finally Act?

This is the third in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. It covers the Commission’s recommendations about the fiduciary obligations of a Chapter 11 debtor’s directors and officers and proposed changes to typical defenses asserted to state causes of action. For copies of this or any prior articles about the Commission, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

Director and Officer Fiduciary Duties in Chapter 11

This is the second in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Select Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. It covers the Commission’s recommendations about the paying of “critical vendors” and other unsecured creditors at the very beginning of a bankruptcy case. The Commission’s recommendations are set forth below. For copies of this Alert, or the prior article about the Commission’s recommendations regarding secured lenders, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

Congress rarely accomplishes anything these days, but the need to reform Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code seems to have “crossed over the aisle.” When the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 1978, America boasted the world’s dominant manufacturing economy. Corporate debt was mostly unsecured trade debt. Secured loans provided tangible asset financing for property, plant, and equipment.

On May 4, 2015, in the case Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, the United States Supreme Court held that debtors in chapter 13 (and presumably chapter 9 and 11 as well) are not entitled as of right to immediately appeal bankruptcy court orders denying confirmation of a proposed plan of reorganization. This ruling, although consistent with a majority of circuit courts of appeal that have considered the issue, reversed governing precedent in several circuit courts—including the Third Circuit, which reviews Delaware bankruptcy court decisions.

On March 16, 2015, the Spanish subsidiary of Banca Privada d’Andorra, Banco de Madrid, sought bankruptcy protection in the midst of a run on the bank by depositors. The run and bankruptcy were the result of FinCEN’s March 10, 2015, announcement that it would bar U.S. banks from providing correspondent banking services to Banca Privada d’Andorra or any bank that processes transactions for Banca Privada d’Andorra.

The ISDA 2014 Resolution Stay Protocol, published on November 12, 2014, by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA),1 represents a significant shift in the terms of the over-the-counter derivatives market.

On August 26, 2014, in the case In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (“Momentive”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that secured creditors could be “crammed down” in a chapter 11 plan with replacement notes bearing interest at substantially below market rates.

Foreign sovereigns have long assumed that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides them with substantial protection against litigants in United States courts. Although the immunity afforded by the FSIA has never been absolute, two recent developments in the Supreme Court of the United States – both involving the Republic of Argentina – have expanded plaintiffs’ ability to locate sovereign assets and force satisfaction of a judgment, notwithstanding the seemingly broad protections of the FSIA.

The rulings are important for sovereign investors for a number of reasons: