The Bankruptcy Code's so-called "cramdown" statute provides debtors with a significant tool that can be used to impose a reorganization plan upon recalcitrant secured lenders, subject to fulfillment of certain requirements. In particular, Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy court to approve a debtor's reorganization plan over the objections of a secured creditor so long as the plan is "fair and equitable" to the creditor.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 contains two sets of provisions for managing the insolvency of financial institutions. First, the legislation creates an Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), a comprehensive regime for resolving a financial institution whose failure is determined to potentially endanger the U.S. financial system.

Corporate Chapter 11 filings remained relatively low in 2014, down slightly from 2013, due to a robust capital market environment, low interest rates and easy access to financing. These and other factors allowed highly leveraged borrowers that might otherwise have been Chapter 11 restructuring candidates to refinance or pursue other nonjudicial restructuring alternatives. Among those companies that filed corporate bankruptcies, the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York continued to capture the lion's share of cases.

The Bankruptcy Code authorizes a bankruptcy trustee to avoid (i.e., obtain the return of) certain types of prepetition property transfers so that the bankrupt estate can be divided among creditors fairly. For example, a trustee may bring actions to set aside transfers made within a specified period before the bankruptcy (preferences) and transfers made deliberately to defraud creditors (fraudulent transfers).

The impact of Argentina's prolonged dispute with the holdouts of its defaulted debt continues to reverberate in the context of foreign sovereign debt restructuring. What has been called the "trial of the century" because of its potential impact on sovereign debt issuances — a clash between the U.S. courts and a foreign sovereign — began in 2001 with Argentina's default.

The last major revision to U.S. business reorganization laws occurred in 1978.
Since then, companies’ capital structures have become more complex and rely
more heavily on leverage, including secured debt in particular; their asset values
are driven less by hard assets and more by services, contracts, intellectual property and
other intangible assets; and their business structures and models increasingly are multinational.
Moreover, there has been a growing perception that troubled companies are

A California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) Chief Counsel Ruling concluded that a taxpayer’s sales of assets pursuant to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were not “occasional sales” within the meaning of 18 Cal. Code Regs. § 25137(c)(1)(A)2. Instead, the sales of assets were deemed to be part of the taxpayer’s normal course of business and occurred frequently. As a result, the taxpayer’s gross receipts from the asset sales were includable in its sales factor for apportionment purposes. Under 18 Cal. Code Regs.

On June 12, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Clark v. Ramekerthat an inherited individual retirement account (IRA) does not qualify for the “retirement funds” exemption in the Bankruptcy Code and is not excluded from a bankruptcy estate on that basis.

As noted in a previous Sutherland Legal Alert, the American Bankruptcy Institute has formed a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the Commission). To further its goal of proposing changes to modernize the Bankruptcy Code, the Commission formed a number of advisory committees, including one named the Financial Contracts, Derivatives and Safe Harbors Committee (the Committee).

The “safe harbor” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code protect firms that trade derivatives, and other participants in financial and commodity markets, from the rigidity that bankruptcy law imposes on most parties. Since their inception in 1982, the safe harbor statutes have gradually grown broader, to reflect a Congressional intent of protecting against secondary shocks reverberating through those markets after a major bankruptcy. The liberalizing of safe harbors traces – and may well be explained by – the rapidly expanding use of derivatives contracts generally.