A recent decision in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York clarifies that restructuring options under Chapter 11 or Chapter 15 are available to foreign issuers of U.S. debt, even if those issuers have no operations in the United States (In re Berau Capital Resources PTE Ltd.). The decision could have widespread implications for cross-border restructuring transactions involving U.S.-issued debt, since the ability to utilize Chapter 11 or Chapter 15 offers many advantages for foreign issuers.

Background

Under long-established common law, loans must be paid only upon maturity, not before. This "perfect tender in time" rule is the default rule in a number of jurisdictions. Many indentures and credit agreements therefore either bar prepayments altogether with "no call" provisions or permit prepayments with "make whole" provisions that require the payment of a specified premium to make up for the loss of future income.

On January 12, 2016, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, issued a non-precedential opinion in Ward Sand & Materials Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., et al. The long-anticipated ruling found that, in long-tail claims, insureds are responsible for the share of liability allocated to insurers that became insolvent prior to December 22, 2004.

In a chapter 15 decision, In re Daebo International Shipping Co., Judge Michael E.

In September 2014, amid “deteriorating financial health” and a “desperate” financial situation, Atlantic City, New Jersey’s Trump Taj Mahal filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Around that same time, the Taj Mahal was attempting to bargain with UNITE HERE Local 54 (the “Union”) to renegotiate the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) prior to its expiration on September 14, 2014. The parties were unable to reach agreement and the CBA expired.

Students have taken on more than $1 trillion in debt to pay for the relentlessly rising costs of higher education. With that much debt outstanding, it’s no surprise that there are increasing numbers of borrowers defaulting on student loan debt, and seeking to discharge that debt by filing for bankruptcy protection. But, as a Wisconsin man recently learned, discharging student loan debt in bankruptcy is no easy feat.

Did Trump win again?  Yes, but this time it was not “The Donald” but was instead the casino-operator Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (“Trump Entertainment”).

The language of Bankruptcy Code § 501(a) is as broad as it is simple.

A “bank [making a secured rescue loan] had information that should have created the requisite suspicion … to conduct a diligent search for possible dirt” — i.e., whether the debtor had the right to pledge $312 million of customer securities, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Jan. 8, 2016.In re Sentinel Management Group, Inc., 2016 WL 98601, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 8, 2016) [“Sentinel V”]. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court, voided the defendant bank’s lien as a fraudulent transfer, and rejected the bank’s good faith defense.

In Venture Bank v. Lapides, 800 F.3d 442 (8th Cir. 2015), the Eighth Circuit found that a bank could not recover from its borrower and, in fact, had violated the post-discharge injunction by relying on change in terms agreements which were ineffective to reaffirm a debt discharged in the borrower’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy.