Once a giant of the U.S. economy, the coal industry  now faces uncertain times due to lower global demand, a boom in domestic natural gas production, over- levered capital structures and stringent environmental regulations. This depressed environment has attracted the attention of certain distressed investors and alternative investment funds looking to capitalize from an eventual upswing in the coal industry.

On May 4, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an important decision regarding creditor standing to  maintain a derivative action on behalf of an insolvent corporation. In Quadrant Structured Products Company v. Vertin et al., C.A. No.

On May 4, 2015, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision in Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin,¹ analyzing creditors’ standing to bring derivative claims against directors and officers of Delaware corporations. Building on the Delaware Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding fiduciary duties owed to creditors,²Vice Chancellor Laster’s opinion has two primary holdings.

A lender cannot rely on its subjective intent in claiming that an otherwise properly filed UCC termination is ineffective, according to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Put another way, if a lender authorizes a termination statement, the termination is valid upon filing such UCC-3 even if the authorization was mistakenly given. While this result is not surprising, it does put lenders (and their counsel) on notice to be diligent in reviewing and authorizing the filing of UCC termination statements.

Overview

On Monday, December 1, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014 (“FIBA” or “the Act”). The Act, which garnered bipartisan support as well as the approval of financial regulators, seeks to facilitate the recapitalization of financial institutions by reforming the bankruptcy process, while maintaining financial stability in U.S. markets. The Act now must be approved by the Senate and then signed into law by the President.

This article was originally published by LatinFinance on November 25, 2014.

A rise of cross-border insolvencies in recent years has generated substantial litigation. In some cases, US bondholders, perceiving their treatment under a foreign reorganization plan to be inequitable, have sought a second chance by opposing the plan in the US on the grounds that its enforcement would be contrary to domestic public policy.

This article first appeared in the American Bankruptcy Institute, November, 2014.

In a decision released on June 25, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that ASARCO LLC could not maintain CERCLA cost recovery actions against the trustees of residuary trusts created by the will of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. ASARCO, as part of its emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, paid the US, the State of Washington, and the Port of Everett, Washington $50.2 million to settle pending CERCLA claims at two Superfund sites in Washington State.

A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall.

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that certain distressed debt funds were not “financial institutions” under the definition of “Eligible Assignee” in the applicable loan agreement and thus were not entitled to vote on the debtor’s chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The District Court decision affirmed a bankruptcy court decision enjoining loan assignments to the funds and recently denied the funds’ motion to vacate the decision.”¹