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.
Germany’s Frankfurt District Court recently dealt with the question of whether a debtor’s lawyers’ fees arising from restructuring advice prior to insolvency could be challenged and claimed back in insolvency. The court held in the first instance (07.05.2015, Az. 2-32 O 102/13) that the lawyers of an insolvent German company in the solar industry had to repay €4.5 million after the out-of-court restructuring failed.
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued an opinion in Quadrant Structured Products Company1that addresses creditors’ rights to bring derivative lawsuits against directors and officers of a corporation. The Court held that Delaware law does not impose a continuous insolvency requirement and that the “traditional balance sheet test” is the appropriate test for determining solvency. The opinion also provides a roadmap on the current landscape under Delaware law for analyzing breach of fiduciary duty claims.
The senior secured note holders recently lost their appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision confirming Momentive's chapter 11 plan.1
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.
Originally published in ABF Journal on May 20, 2015
Determining secured lender cramdown interest rates in Chapter 11 cases has been widely debated, and recent court rulings have proven to be inconclusive. Kaye Scholer Attorneys Madlyn Gleich Primoff and Holly Martin discuss the controversial issue, highlighting the ABI Commission’s recent recommendations that endorse a more favorable approach for secured lenders.
Why Lawyers Need to Pay More Attention to the Distinctions Between Veil-Piercing and Alter-Ego Theories
Two recent decisions of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York may complicate future debt exchange offers. The cases address the validity, under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended (the Act), of indenture amendments that delete substantive covenant protections in the context of out-of-court debt restructurings. Such amendments are a common feature of debt exchange and cash tender offers and are often essential to achieve a restructuring outside of bankruptcy court.
With the near-historic drop in oil prices, distressed investors are evaluating a myriad of investment opportunities in the oil industry and related fields. One particular area of focus when analyzing these energy-related opportunities are the master limited partnerships that many energy companies utilize in their corporate structure.
Drop in Oil Prices
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.