In what appears to be a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that payments made to investors in a two tiered securitization structure commonly employed in commercial mortgage-backed securitization (“CMBS”) transactions are largely protected from fraudulent or preferential transfer claims by the securities contract safe harbor set forth in Bankruptcy Code section 546(e). Specifically, in Krol v.

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.

When a debtor pays the market cost for goods and services provided to it by third-party vendors, these payments normally cannot be recovered as fraudulent transfers in the U.S. That is because the debtor receives reasonably equivalent value for the payments to its vendors and because the unsuspecting vendors can assert a good faith defense based on the value provided.

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

Recent legal and regulatory developments have raised issues for those considering a loan-to-own acquisition strategy, and have continued to impact both the structure of highly leveraged financings and the makeup of those willing to provide it.

In re RML  --  Irrational Exuberance?

The House of Representatives passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014 (H.R. 5421) on December 1, 2014.  The bill, if enacted, would add provisions to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including a new "subchapter V" of chapter 11, under which "covered financial institutions" would be eligible to be debtors in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case.   

First in a Series of Articles on Bankruptcy Issues

For many investors, business bankruptcy is a mysterious black box that chews up investor and creditor value and then spits out assets or, occasionally, a reorganized operating company. In this series of articles, we are going to open up that box and shed some light on the processes of bankruptcy. After all, you never know what business will file next. It is best to have some understanding of the nature of the game – and to be as well-armed as possible.

Insider status in U.S. bankruptcy carries with it significant burdens. Insiders face a one year preference exposure rather than the 90 day period applicable to non-insiders; insiders are by definition disinterested persons and may not be retained to provide professional services and transactions among debtors and their insiders are subject to heightened scrutiny under the entire fairness doctrine.

Several recent legal and regulatory developments in the U.S. will likely alter the makeup of the group of arrangers and financiers willing to arrange and provide financing for certain highly leveraged transactions, and also provide guidance to those considering a loan-to-own or related acquisition strategy, in order to help avoid potential pitfalls. 

Revised Leveraged Lending Guidance