Organizations that acquire claims in bankruptcy should acquire such claims by a sale without knowledge of the debtors’ claims against the original holder or prior transferees, and obtain an indemnification from the transferor of such claims.
In a decision in In re Enron Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63129, No. 05-01025 (S.D.N.Y. August 27, 2007), the Honorable Shira Scheindlin, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, held that the sale of a claim that is subject to equitable subordination under section 510(c) or disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code may insulate the claim from subordination and disallowance when asserted against the buyer of the claim. At first blush the decision may be, and has been, read by some to offer relief and clarity to distressed debt investors.
A recent federal district court appellate decision issued in the Enron chapter 11 case1 has ruled that the postpetition transfer of a prepetition bankruptcy claim from one party to another may insulate the transferred claim against certain types of attack based solely on conduct by a prior holder of the same claim. Whether a particular claim is protected depends upon how the claim was transferred.
Many participants in the multibillion-dollar distressed-debt trading markets were hoping that Federal District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin would permit expedited review of her ruling immunizing a purchaser of a claim against a debtor in bankruptcy from objections to the claim based upon the conduct of a prior holder of the claim.
A recent ruling by a federal court in New York has the potential to severely impact the $500 billion a year distressed debt market.
The uncertain economic times and high leverage multiples on many loan transactions have combined to create distress in many commercial loan portfolios. An understanding of commercial loan workouts is integral to loan officers, portfolio managers and internal lenders’ counsel.
Introduction
During the present downturn in the U.S. economy, opportunities exist for investors in global distressed asset markets. Purchasers and sellers involved in these markets should be aware of the various mechanisms that are available to transfer assets of distressed companies. Historically, asset sales under s. 363 of the Bankruptcy Code1 have proven to be cheaper and faster than purchasing distressed assets through a Chapter 11 reorganization. Recent cases have shown that s.
As if buying distressed debt is not challenging enough given the underlying business considerations, the possible, and perhaps likely, bankruptcy filing of your soon-to-be borrower presents a maze of issues the note purchaser should consider before acquiring the debt.
1. Know Your Seller
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: