On September 7, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, and announced (i) Treasury’s entry into a Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement with each Government Sponsored Entity (GSE), (ii) the creation of a Government Sponsored Entity Credit Facility (GSECF), and (iii) the adoption of a GSE Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) Purchase Program.
Yesterday, the Big Three U.S. auto chief executives submitted restructuring plans to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s November 21st request calling on the auto executives to “submit a credible restructuring plan that results in a viable industry, with quality jobs, and economic opportunity for the 21st century while protecting taxpayer investments” by December 2nd.
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.
While uncertainties loom around the auto industry, suppliers and OEMs can try to prepare for the road the lies ahead.
On August 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its ruling on whether Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) (and its parent Grupo Mexico) had caused ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to fraudulently transfer stock of Southern Peru Copper Company (“SPCC”) from ASARCO to AMC. The Court determined that AMC was liable for (1) intentional fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law; and (3) civil conspiracy under Arizona law. See ASARCO LLC v.
In a harshly worded decision, a federal bankruptcy judge concluded that a syndicated loan product was so one-sided in favor of the lender as to "shock the conscience" of the court. The judge therefore equitably subordinated the secured lender's claim. See In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, No. 08-61570, 2009 WL 1324950 (Bankr. D. Mont. May 12, 2009).
Yellowstone Mountain Club
Although courts are generally reluctant to equitably subordinate claims of non-insiders, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana recently did just that to the claims of a non-insider lender based on overreaching and self-serving conduct in Credit Suisse v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In Re Yellowstone Mt. Club, LLC), Case No. 08-61570-11, Adv. No. 09-00014 (Bankr. D. Mont. May 13, 2009).