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:
Market participants involved in distressed exchange offers have become accustomed to grappling with the implications of Trust Indenture Act Section 316(b) in the context of potential exit consents, i.e., are the contemplated amendments to the indenture governing the securities subject to the exchange significant enough to impair or affect the right of a holder to receive payment of principal and interest on or after the due dates of the relevant note?
On August 27, 2007, United States District Judge Shira Scheindlin held that Springfield Associates, an innocent transferee of a claim from Citigroup against Enron, was not subject to certain counterclaims and defenses so long as Springfield was a “purchaser” and not an “assignee” of the claim. See In re Enron Corp. v. Springfield Assocs. L.L.C., No. 07 Civ. 1957, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63129 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2007).
On August 9, 2006, Judge Burton R. Lifland of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Final Order Establishing Procedures for Trading in Claims and Equity Securities of Dana Corporation (the “Dana NOL Trading Order”). The Dana NOL Trading Order is materially different from NOL trading orders that have been approved by other bankruptcy courts and, from the perspective of investors in claims and distressed securities, represents a material improvement.
Treatment of NOLs in Business Reorganizations
The German parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) has recently passed a law on the restructuring and dissolution of distressed financial institutions, establishing a sector-wide restructuring fund and extending the statute of limitations for the liability board members (Restructuring Act).
A creditor’s ability to vote on a plan of reorganization is one of its most fundamental rights in a chapter 11 bankruptcy. For strategic investors in distressed debt, the power to vote—and potentially control a voting class (or obtain a blocking position in that class)— can be a critical tool in maximizing value and return on investment. Investors should be aware, however, that a recent decision by Judge Robert E.
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.
© 2011 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. in the Vol. 4, No. 6 edition of the Bloomberg Law Reports—Asia Pacific Law. Reprinted with permission. Bloomberg Law Reports® is a registered trademark and service mark of Bloomberg Finance L.P.
Thomas Edison famously said that “opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.” Consistent with Edison’s musings, companies in an acquisition mode often overlook opportunities that arise in the bankruptcy arena because they lack knowledge of the system and think bankruptcy is an unruly beast dressed in extra-large overalls.
The Australian government is working to significantly reform Australia’s current insolvency laws by mid-2017.
The reforms are intended to achieve greater likelihood of business preservation by introducing the flexibility to achieve real turnaround of businesses in crisis.
The proposed changes include: