A recent bankruptcy case merits the attention of credit managers and others involved in credit decisions. To avoid credit risk when dealing with a chapter 11 debtor in possession, you must verify that the debtor has court authority to use cash collateral prior to shipping or accepting payment.

Introduction

Judge Drain’s recent bench rulings in Momentive Performance Materials in 2014 generated a great deal of controversy in the distressed debt world.  Distressed investors, lenders, and commentators have questioned whether the Momentive rulings will lead to an industry trend in which debtors seek to cram down their secured lenders to take advantage of the ability to do so at below market interest rates.  

The District Court sustained claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and deepening insolvency asserted by the successor-in-interest to the Committee of Unsecured Creditors of DVI, a defunct company, against DVI’s former officers and directors.

Picture the scene: You have just received word that your customer has filed Chapter 11. You had followed my ad-vice (see article Reducing a Customer’s Accounts Receiva-ble in the Zone of Insolvency), and put the customer on a cash-before-delivery basis and demanded assurances of performance. You were successful in reducing the ac-counts receivable owed, and avoiding preference liability in doing so.

The customer, now a Chapter 11 debtor, calls and de-mands that you continue to ship, and resume credit terms.

In an interesting decision with important implications for both Chapter 15 practice and financial institutions’ global credit risk analyses, a US Chapter 15 court (the “Court”) granted recognition of a number of Brazilian proceedings involving entities within the OAS Group.  See In re OAS S.A. et al., Case No. 15-10937 (SMB) (Bankr.

The strategic importance of classifying claims and interests under a chapter 11 plan is sometimes an invitation for creative machinations designed to muster adequate support for confirmation of the plan. Although the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally states that only “substantially similar” claims or interests can be classified together, it neither defines “substantial similarity” nor requires that all claims or interests fitting the description be classified together.

As a result of the recent turmoil in the financial markets, a number of clients have asked us questions about counterparty risk. The following is a summary of some of the key issues in dealing with financial counterparties. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Code”) and the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78aaa et seq. (“SIPA”) each seek to protect “customer property” in the event of the failure, insolvency or liquidation of a broker-dealer.1 Neither affords customers the certainty of a 100% recovery, however.

Owners of bank loan participations take on two kinds of credit risk: (i) the borrower’s failure to pay the underlying bank loan, and (ii) the loan participation grantor’s bankruptcy. The first risk is well understood and carefully analyzed in each transaction. This memorandum focuses on the second kind of credit risk assumed by a participant -- grantor insolvency.

One of the significant changes brought about by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA") was the treatment of loans secured by automobiles in Chapter 13 cases. Prior to BAPCPA, debtors were permitted to "cram down" the secured portions of automobile loans to the fair market value of the collateral. This often resulted in significant reductions to claims secured by automobiles.