Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C § 101 et seq., which incorporates most of the provisions of the United Nations’ Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency,[1] was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Chapter 15 replaced former 11 U.S.C. § 304, which was been enacted in 1978 to provide specific procedures by which a representative in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding could obtain relief in U.S. courts to facilitate the foreign bankruptcy proceeding.

On April 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court and concluded that special ERISA “termination premiums” due PBGC are not contingent prepetition claims subject to discharge in a chapter 11 reorganization. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Oneida, Ltd., 2009 WL 929528 (2d Cir. April 8, 2009), rev’g Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2008).

Whether you are interested in purchasing assets or a going concern, bankruptcy court can be a land of opportunity. Assets may be sold by a trustee, or someone the trustee retains, in a Chapter 7 liquidation, or by a Debtor-in-Possession (a “DIP”) in a Chapter 11 reorganization case. In either case, you should expect a competitive bidding process. Going concerns are typically sold in Chapter 11 cases where the debtor determines, often after trying to reorganize, that it lacks the resources to reorganize and continue operating.

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:

A bankruptcy filing by a property owner may not be the only action that prevents foreclosure of a security interest in that property held by a secured creditor. In a growing list of cases, courts also have held the bankruptcy of a junior secured creditor with a lien on the property invokes the automatic stay against such action.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on May 5, 2009, that a group of secured lenders were fully secured and “entitled to a full recovery” from the debtor despite the bankruptcy court’s improper valuation of the collateral (improved airport terminal space) securing the lenders’ underlying $60 million loan. In re United Airlines, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9648 (7th Cir. 5/5/09) (Easterbrook, Ch. J.). The lower courts had valued the lenders’ collateral at $35 million, leaving them with a $25 million unsecured claim.

Following several weeks of speculation about how pending cash collateral, cash management, and debtor-in-possession financing motions might affect basic principles of structured finance, the bankruptcy court deferred a final ruling on the motions and extended the interim cash collateral order. In so doing, Judge Allan L. Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York suggested that CMBS lenders organize themselves so that common issues can be identified and resolution expedited.

Today, after an extended auction, the OTS closed BankUnited, FSB, headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida and named theFDIC as receiver.

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.

Yellowstone Mountain Club LLC (Yellowstone Club) developed land near Yellowstone National Park in Montana as a high-end residential development with a private ski and golf club.

The development of Yellowstone Club didn’t progress as promptly or as smoothly as projected. Memberships ended up being sold at substantially discounted prices.