It begins with an awkward mouthful. Outside a bankruptcy brief, is “unimpairment” even a word? (No, per Merriam-Webster.) Inside Chapter 11, it’s much more: a trend.
Want to refinance your bonds cheaply? Are you an otherwise sound and solvent business, forced into bankruptcy by a massive fire (PG&E), persistent low commodity pricing (Ultra Petroleum), or a pandemic (Hertz, whose airport rental business was shuttered in 2020 by COVID-19)?
Or would you just prefer to boost your stock value by lowering your coupon?
The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) issued a Business Rescue Proceedings Report (Business Rescue Report) on business rescue proceedings from its inception on 1 May 2011 to 31 December 2021 – a “ten-year” scorecard. It takes stock of how business rescue has developed over that period and whether South Africa has matured as a late entrant into the playing field of corporate restructuring regimes. The story must be told over the “ten-year” period and dissected into two parts: pre- and post-pandemic.
This is how Tribune ends: not with a bang, but a whimper. The 12-year litigation saga, rooted in the spectacular failure of the media and sports conglomerate’s 2007 leveraged buyout, reached an end in late February with a curt “cert. denied” from the US Supreme Court.
Morgan Lewis was one of the firms that captained the defense for Tribune’s former shareholders. This post notes some lessons that we learned—and relearned.
Lesson One: Section 546(e)’s ‘New’ Safe Harbor
Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 2008 affords a financially distressed company a fighting chance to restructure its financial obligations and avoid the destruction of value through liquidation for the duration of its formal chapter 6 business rescue proceedings. Such a moratorium is not available if a company seeks to conclude a restructure through a compromise or arrangement with all its creditors or members of any class of creditors.
The US Supreme Court tends to hear a couple of bankruptcy cases per term. Most of these cases deal with interpreting provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. However, every few years or so, the Supreme Court decides a constitutional issue in bankruptcy. Some are agita-inducing (Northern Pipeline, Stern), some less so (Katz). The upcoming case is a little more nuanced, but could have major consequences.
Insight
Consider a lender that extends a term loan in the amount of $1 million to an entity debtor. The loan is guaranteed by the debtor’s owner. If both the debtor and the guarantor become subject to bankruptcy cases, it is settled that the lender has a claim of $1 million (ignoring interest and expenses) in each bankruptcy case. However, the lender cannot recover more than $1 million in total in the two cases combined. (Ivanhoe Building & Loan Ass'n of Newark, NJ v. Orr, 295 U.S. 243 (1935).)
Not so long ago US Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain of the Southern District of New York had his time in the barrel—pilloried in the media for approving releases to members of the Sackler family as part of a bankruptcy plan that would settle global opioid-related claims against Purdue Pharma, a bankruptcy debtor, and affiliated family members and other persons who were not bankruptcy debtors.
Chapter 11 plans are a form of stakeholder democracy. Elaborate rules govern voting and its consequences, and, in Section 1125(b), how acceptances—and rejections—may be solicited. Well, sort of.
On March 23, 2020, we commented on the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision in the Arrangement relating to Consultants SM inc. case. The City of Montreal (the “City”) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and the appeal was heard on May 20, 2021.
On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court”) dismissed the City’s appeal, thereby rendering an important decision with respect to “pre-post compensation” and “non-dischargeable debts” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”).
Le 23 mars 2020, nous avons commenté l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec dans le dossier Arrangement relatif à Consultants SM inc. La Ville de Montréal (la « Ville ») a porté cet arrêt devant la Cour suprême du Canada et l’audition du pourvoi a eu lieu le 20 mai 2021.