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
This issue reviews the most important recent changes to the regime of challenging transactions made by debtors in anticipation of insolvency. These changes were introduced in the Resolution adopted at the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation (the “Supreme Commercial Court”) No. 63 “Certain Matters Relating to the Application of Chapter III.1 of the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”1 dated 23 December 2010 (the “Resolution”).2
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
Fundamental restructuring of insolvent companies—in any sector— is a fight for survival.
Given the global nature of the industry, it is perhaps no surprise that shipping companies and their advisors have sought appropriate court protection to alleviate creditor pressure and a possible break-up of the business where a consensual restructuring is not possible.
Setoff is a doctrine based as much on practical considerations as on equitable ones.
Creditors often compromise disputed claims against debtors and their guarantors. In connection with the settlement of claims against a debtor and its guarantor, the creditor may give the debtor and the guarantor written releases from further liability in exchange for a settlement payment. But what if the creditor later surrenders a portion of the payment in settlement of a preference recovery action? Can the creditor revive the guarantee notwithstanding the release?
In the September, 2006 issue of Insolvency Notes, the effect of the overhaul of the bankruptcy laws in the Czech Republic was discussed. As was the case at that time, the new insolvency laws were to become effective July 1, 2007. It now appears that the effective date will be delayed. The lower house of Czech Parliament gave fast-track approval recently to a bill for delaying implementation of the new bankruptcy act by six months, to January 1, 2008. Senate and presidential approval is still needed.