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?

Summary

This briefing summarizes the recent U.S. Bankruptcy Court order establishing bar dates for creditors filing claims in relation to debts owed to them by Lehman Brothers entities in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, this briefing discusses who must file a proof of claim, how to file the proof of claim, and the special requirements for claims in respect of derivative contracts, guarantees and Lehman program securities.

Yesterday, the Oregon Division of Finance & Corporate Securities closed Community First Bank, Prineville, Oregon, and named the FDIC as receiver.

The recent steady drumbeat of Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings is producing an equally persistent corollary: creditors receiving new securities issued by the reorganizing debtor or a related party in full or partial satisfaction of the creditors’ claims. Some of these creditors-cum-investors never planned to receive securities. The paradigmatic example is a creditor that enters into a normal business transaction resulting in an obligation that the debtor company hasn’t yet satisfied when it files for reorganization.

Two US federal appeals courts recently held that a provision of the Bankruptcy Code can protect private company sellers in the event that the company they sold later goes bankrupt and a fraudulent transfer claim is brought against them to recover the sale proceeds. The courts found that this protection applies when a financial institution is used to handle the transfer of consideration in the sale.

On July 2, 2009 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order establishing September 22, 2009 as the deadline for filing proofs of claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. or any of its debtor affiliates (the “Order”). The Order provides that any holder of a claim against the Debtors who fails to file a proof of claim before the September 22, 2009 deadline will be forever barred from asserting such claim thereafter.

An opinion issued earlier this year by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. (Bankr. Del., No. 08-11525; January 9, 2009) may end much of the practice of so-called “triangular setoffs” by creditors in bankruptcy cases. The Court in SemCrude found that creditors violate section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code by setting off amounts among multiple debtors, even when exercising contractual assignment rights. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching impact given the dearth of case law on this fairly common contractual provision.

On August 28, 2009, Delta Financial Corp. (“Delta”) filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking to overturn the dismissal of its coverage action against Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (“Westchester”) and United States Fire Insurance Co. (“USFI”). The coverage action, which was filed as a part of an adversary proceeding with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, sought coverage under two D&O policies issued by Westchester and USFI respectively.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently declined to dismiss the Chapter 11 petitions of several subsidiaries of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP) demonstrating that special purpose entities (SPEs), designed to avoid bankruptcy, can be subject to bankruptcy proceedings despite having strong cash flows, no debt defaults and "bankruptcy remote" structures.