In recent opinions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have revisited the doctrine of equitable subordination and have underscored the requirement that, before a court can equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim, the court must find that other creditors have been harmed by the actions of the creditor. Importantly, both decisions stress that equitable subordination is meant to be remedial and not punitive, and may not be imposed merely because a creditor has engaged in misconduct.
The recent financial crisis has resulted in events that once seemed impossible. Recently, in the federal government’s attempts to bail out the auto industry, an event unprecedented in American history almost occurred: the forced subordination of existing secured debt to new loans issued by the federal government. If the government were to revive this concept in future bailouts and attempt to subordinate the liens of secured creditors, a suit challenging the constitutionality of such action would have a good chance of success.
The Potential For Forced Subordination
In the March 2008 issue, we discussed a decision from the In re Urban Communicators PCS, Ltd. Partnership1 case. In that decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that under section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court could limit the rate of postpetition interest to be paid to an over-secured creditor to an amount less than the contract interest rate.
On February 23, 2009, Pennsylvania became the second state to recognize an "ordinary course of business" exception to preference actions brought under a state insolvency statute where the defense is not expressly provided for in the statute. In Joel S. Ario, Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in His Official Capacity as Liquidator of Reliance Insurance Company, Appellant v. H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., H.J. Heinz Finance Company, and Portion Pac, Inc., et al., Appellees, No. 21 MAP 2006 (Pa. Feb.
This morning, March 2, 2009, American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") announced a loss of $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of 2008, a total net loss for 2008 of $99.29 billion, and a major restructuring of its operations, including a new federal infusion of $30 billion, forgiveness of certain debts, and relaxation of prior bailout terms. For comparison purposes, all insured losses for all insurance companies (not just AIG) relating to Hurricane Katrina are estimated at slightly more than $40 billion.
In Thabalt v Chait (Nov. 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld an award of damages against PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC) based on PWC’s alleged negligent audit of the Ambassador Insurance Company. Plaintiff, the Vermont Insurance
Recent declines in the trading prices of many companies' debt securities has created opportunities for those companies to reacquire a portion or all of that debt at substantial discounts through open market repurchases, privately negotiated transactions and tender offers. In some cases, the opportunities for discounted repurchases come to companies directly from investors seeking to sell the debt back in order to meet their own cash needs or otherwise obtain liquidity for thinly-traded securities.
In these uncertain times, boards of directors face many important decisions about a company’s present and future actions, including reduction or suspension of dividends, layoffs, asset sales, unsolicited takeover offers, liquidation and even insolvency proceedings. In making these decisions, directors should remember their overarching responsibility for continuing oversight and informed decision-making.
One of the most significant tax provisions contained in the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) might prove helpful to certain taxpayers looking to restructure their balance sheets.
When an insurance company becomes insolvent, one key issue is the extent to which the insurer's liquidator may recover prior payments made by the insurer. On February 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a significant decision limiting such recoveries. The court held that payments made by a failed Pennsylvania insurance company in the ordinary course of business are not recoverable by the statutory liquidator of the insolvent insurer.