With the possibility of a major stock brokerage liquidation appearing more likely than it has been in recent periods, the effect of a liquidation on customers and financial counterparties has become of great interest to many of our clients and others.

The rapid growth in derivatives as hedging instruments, particularly through equity swaps, credit default swaps ("CDS") and loan credit default swaps ("LCDS"), has challenged fundamental assumptions underlying corporate governance law, federal shareholder disclosure requirements and bankruptcy law. Corporate law has long relied on a "one share one vote" model, which presumes that a shareholder's economic interests in a corporation are inextricably linked to their voting power.

The revisions to Ohio’s exemption law set forth in O.R.C. §2329.66 become effective on September 25, 2008 by Senate Bill 281 that was signed by Governor Strickland on June 27, 2008. The purpose of the changes to Ohio’s exemption law is to increase the exemptions for property that a debtor may hold exempt from execution, garnishment or sale for the satisfaction of a judgment. Ohio’s current exemptions have not been revised since 1979, and the current exemptions do not reflect the costs of living in 2008.

October 17, 2008 marked the third anniversary of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). This sweeping bankruptcy reform was designed to eliminate bankruptcy as an option for many would-be filers. While there is no doubt BAPCPA impacted bankruptcy filings both nationally and in West Virginia, recent trends suggest filings are on the rise and could reach pre-BAPCPA levels in the foreseeable future.

The 2005 Boom

The deepening international financial crisis and tightening credit market has led to a substantial increase in business bankruptcy filings. While the number of commercial bankruptcies has been increasing since 2007, business chapter 11 filings surged to even higher levels in the third quarter of 2008. In Delaware and the Southern District of New York, where many commercial cases are filed, business chapter 11 filings more than quadrupled from just over 100 in the third quarter of 2007 to almost 450 in the third quarter of 2008.

In the current economic climate, businesses are likely to take a keen interest in the ability of their suppliers and customers to meet their obligations. This can extend beyond purely financial obligations to include the protection of critical links in the supply chain. A manufacturer may, for instance, be very dependent on one of its suppliers for a specialist part that cannot readily be obtained elsewhere, or a supplier may rely heavily on an intermediary to reach ultimate consumers.

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.

As the economy worsens and the value of corporate assets declines, unsecured creditors are finding that very little, if anything, is left for them at the bankruptcy table after the secured creditors have taken as much as they can from a debtor’s assets. Now, after a period of having copious credit available on attractive terms, debtors are going into bankruptcy without sufficient assets to pay even their secured creditors in full. In such circumstances, prospects for unsecured creditors are bleak indeed.  

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:

On January 13, 2009, in Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, the Court of Chancery of Delaware considered the petition by an investor to have Genetrix, LLC dissolved because it was no longer “reasonably practicable” to continue to operate the company when the company had no operating revenue, no prospects of equity or debt infusion, a deadlocked board of directors and an operating agreement that gave no means of navigating around the deadlock. The court found in favor of the investor and concluded that judicial dissolution was the best and only option for the members in the company.