Sometimes the interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code leads to unexpected results. In a recent case, the US Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (BAP) has ruled that section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code requires the subordination of certain claims against a debtor to all equity interests in the debtor, even though such subordination may mean that the holders of the claims will receive nothing on the claims.

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the most important factor for a bankruptcy court to consider in approving a pre-plan settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 is whether the settlement’s distribution scheme complies with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. Prior to this ruling, courts in the Second Circuit generally considered the following factors when approving settlement agreements:

On January 10, 2014, the Federal Executive Branch of México published in the Official Gazette the legal amendments to México’s Commercial Bankruptcy Law (Ley de Concursos Mercantiles, or LCM), effecting the most comprehensive set of changes to the LCM since its enactment over 13 years ago, and establishing new rules for bankruptcy proceedings in México with the intent to improve the position of creditors dealing with the insolvency of local companies.

On May 14, 2009, Judge Allan Gropper of the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, approved a US$400 million DIP financing package in the US$27 billion General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) Chapter 11 case. Judge Gropper’s ruling also included approval of GGP’s proposal to use cash flow generated by shopping centers, structured by GGP as bankruptcy remote, special purpose entities, to fund GGP’s ongoing central operations while in bankruptcy.  

Can market capitalization be used to evidence the solvency of bankrupt debtors? A recent bankruptcy case out of the District of Delaware suggests that it can.1

Recently, in In re Northwest Airlines Corp.,1 Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper issued an opinion requiring a group of hedge funds that had formed an ad hoc committee of equity security holders (the “Ad Hoc Equity Committee”) to disclose “the amounts of claims or interests owned by the members of the committee, the times when acquired, the amounts paid therefor, and any sales or other disposition thereof” in order to comply with Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”).

Background

Debt-for-debt exchanges are not new, but are worth revisiting given the current economic climate. Furthermore, the recently enacted "Stimulus Act"1 provides some temporary relief to debtors from potentially harsh tax consequences of restructuring. The following discussion is relevant to issuers (also referred to as debtors) or holders (also referred to as creditors) of debt who are "US persons" (as defined in the US Internal Revenue Code).2

In order to illustrate some of the key US federal income tax consequences of a debt-for-debt exchange, consider the following example:

Must a foreign debtor's insolvency representative obtain permission from a United States bankruptcy court before exercising the debtor's rights as shareholder to remove and replace directors and officers of a US corporation? The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Ninth Circuit recently held not, provided that the representative does not require judicial assistance to exercise these rights.1

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the “BAPCPA”) created an additional category of administrative expenses