The current liquidity drought is pushing more businesses toward some form of financial reorganization. As the restructurings become more frequent, two different trends–one in bankruptcy and the other in private equity–will intersect. The result may surprise dealmakers searching the detritus for investment opportunities.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware inElway Company, LLP v. Miller (In re Elrod Holdings Corp.), 2008 WL 4414315 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 30, 2008) recently held that transfers in payment of a private stock sale to insiders constituted “settlement payments” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code and were therefore immune from avoidance as constructively fraudulent transfers by the chapter 7 trustee.
Extending credit to risky customers in the automotive industry has increasingly required active and careful management of the prospective sale and the account receivable to assure payment. The news of GM’s, Ford’s and Chrysler’s financial condition, and any likely affect of their bankruptcy on its suppliers, has changed the definition of “credit risk” to include otherwise traditionally “credit-worthy” customers that operate in financially-uncertain industries.
Introduction
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:
In light of the continuing economic downturn, many issuers with periodic reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are or may be faced with the prospect of reorganizing or liquidating under the United States Bankruptcy Code. These issuers must file their Exchange Act reports under the strain of the bankruptcy process, which imposes practical difficulties in completing and timely filing the reports during a time when resources are limited. Can these reporting requirements be modified so that issuers can more readily satisfy them?
With an increasing emphasis on identifying value in the marketplace, entrepreneurs have focused their efforts on acquiring debt instruments, senior secured and mezzanine, in particular. Two primary strategies are being employed with respect to the debt: (1) acquire the debt for the purposes of restructuring the terms with the borrower(s) or (2) acquire the debt for the purpose of exercising the creditor’s remedies (i.e., foreclosing on the equity).
On August 11, the Honorable Allan L. Gropper issued an opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denying five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of several property-specific special purpose subsidiaries (SPE Debtors), including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc.
In the recent heyday of real estate and structured finance, the use of “bankruptcy–remote” special purpose entities (SPEs) as borrowers was a fundamental underwriting requirement by lenders in many loans, and a critical factor considered by ratings agencies, to shield lenders and their collateral from the potentially adverse impact of bankruptcy filings by their borrowers’ parents and siblings.
On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.