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

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Beijing Kerry Centre South Tower, Ste. 823 No. 1 Guang Hua Rd., Chaoyang District Beijing 100020, China T: +86.10.5876.3500 F: +86.10.5876.3501 Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC 10 Collyer Quay #27-00 Ocean Financial Centre Singapore 049315 T: +65 6389 3000 F: +65 6389 3099 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Roppongi Hills Mori Tower 24th Fl.

Court holds that TIA § 316(b) prohibits only non‐consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms.

A unanimous panel held that Asarco’s settlement in bankruptcy for its “share of response costs” did not preclude it from later bringing a CERCLA contribution claim.

Key developments in the Indian legal landscape in 2016

From the Startup India campaign launched in January 2016 to the coming into force of substantial provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in December 2016, the legal landscape in India has witnessed some crucial developments this past year. In this LawFlash, we describe briefly what we consider to be some of the key legal and regulatory developments in India in 2016.

Arbitration Act

India’s Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) issued a notification on December 7 (Notification) announcing that certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), which are currently not in effect, will come into force on December 15, 2016.

The key provisions that will be brought into force include the following:

Compromise, Arrangements, and Amalgamation

Certain provisions contained in Chapter XV of the Act will be brought into effect that deal with