Several recent legal developments will likely impact acquisition finance.
Since the financial crisis, sales under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code have provided an increasingly popular way for secured creditors of distressed businesses to recover their loans. However, despite the advantages of Section 363 sales, the significant expense and time required to conduct a Bankruptcy sale has caused secured creditors to pursue less comprehensive solutions. One alternative for recouping value from a troubled loan is an Article 9 foreclosure sale under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
A June 2013 decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Greenville Division, In re L.L. Murphrey Company, 2013 WL 2451368 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. June 6, 2013), highlights the importance of due diligence in connection with assignments of security interests.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Jaffe v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,1 recently held that a U.S. bankruptcy court is not required under principles of comity to blindly apply foreign law to assets located in the U.S. of a foreign debtor whose principal insolvency proceeding is outside the U.S. Instead, bankruptcy courts must balance the interests of the affected U.S. parties with the those of the foreign debtor. In this case, the balancing required the application of U.S. law to the foreign debtor’s U.S. assets, not German law as applied in the foreign proceeding.
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the Residential Capital (“ResCap”) cases issued an opinion on November 15, 2013 (the “Opinion”)2 allowing the unamortized interest associated with original issue discount (“OID”) that was generated in a fair market value exchange and claimed by ResCap’s junior secured noteholders (the “Holders”). While the OID ruling is only one component of the Opinion,3 it may have far reaching implications, as already evidenced in the pricing of other OID notes that were the product of fair market value exchanges.
Commercial Finance
Introduction
Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held, on June 25, 2013 (the “Lehman Op.”),1that claims under repurchase transactions (“Repos”) do not qualify as customer claims and therefore are not entitled to the priority or coverage provided for customers’ claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).
Since 2008, the shipping market (in particular, the bulker market) has been badly affected by a decreased demand for shipping, largely due to the global financial crisis. To date, the shipping market is struggling, and claims for unpaid charter hire continue to surface along with the traditional assortment of other claims that arise between contracting parties.