The Federal bank regulators which supervise banks have made a statement encouraging workouts necessitated by the coronavirus. Loans which would otherwise be classified as TDRs (Troubled Loan Restructurings) will not have to be classified as such under certain conditions. For example, if the workout was necessitated by the pandemic and if the loan was otherwise in good standing as of December 31, 2019. The government’s intent is clear: Everyone gains more by a workout or restructuring than by liquidation or litigation. Value is often severely diminished in bankruptcy or in a liquidation.

Faced with constantly evolving circumstances in these challenging times, officers and directors should not lose sight of what is arguably their most important corporate role–that is, as a fiduciary. The question, particularly as a corporation’s financial situation changes and restructuring is being considered, is: Who is that fiduciary duty owed to? Unfortunately, the answer depends on whether the corporation is insolvent or near insolvent, which is why being vigilant now will help avoid scrutiny by creditors later.

When Financial Stress Turns to Distress–Restructuring Tools to Avoid Disaster

Parts 1 and 2: Chapter 11 Checklist and What Else Is in the Toolbox

Introduction

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) in the bankruptcy cases of Sears Holdings Corp. may loom large in a day and age when shopping mall operators are seeking creative alternatives to the traditional, retail-oriented anchor-store business model.

THE ISSUE

In a recent judgment, i.e., on 17 January 2020, the Indian appellate insolvency tribunal, namely, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held in M. Ravindranath Reddy v. G. Kishan, that the lease of immovable property cannot be considered as supply of goods or rendering any services and therefore the due amount cannot fall within the definition of operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

In the winter of 2015, the Indian Legislature sought to tackle the persistent problem of bad debts affecting Indian financial institutions and trade creditors by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), which was finally notified in May 2016. The key purpose of the enactment was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons / entities. 

Given the commonality in today’s marketplace of complex corporate capital structures that employ multiple layers of secured debt, existing and potential creditors need to be increasingly aware of the rights and limitations provided for in subordination or intercreditor agreements. These agreements are often entered into between the existing lender or debt holder and a new lender. They often restrict the actions of subordinated lenders upon the debtor’s filing for bankruptcy protection, including denying their right to vote on the debtor’s plan of reorganization.

In a recent decision¹, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found the standard for sealing under § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code was not met and declined to seal a settlement agreement, despite requests from the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") and the counterparties to the settlement agreement to do so. Confidentiality was an essential condition of the settlement. In addition, the United States trustee supported the motion to seal, arguing that the standard for sealing had been met.

Congress enacted the ordinary course of business defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to protect recurring, customary transactions in order to encourage the continuation of business with and the extension of credit to a financially distressed customer.