A recent decision in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) in the Lehman case has extended the unenforceability of ipso facto clauses to a provision triggered by the bankruptcy filing of an affiliate of a contractual party.

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded an Oregon bankruptcy court’s order designating recently acquired claims of a secured creditor for bad faith, holding that a bad faith finding requires “something more.” Specifically, the Court found that a bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a plan of reorganization, and/or (2) blocking the plan will adversely impact the remaining creditors.Pacific Western Bank, et al. v.

Introduction

Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held, on June 25, 2013 (the “Lehman Op.”),1that claims under repurchase transactions (“Repos”) do not qualify as customer claims and therefore are not entitled to the priority or coverage provided for customers’ claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

Two United States Bankruptcy Judges for the Southern District of New York recently issued a joint opinion addressing common issues raised by motions to dismiss in two separate adversary proceedings – one pending before Judge Bernstein and the other before Judge Glenn (the “Adversary Proceedings”). The Adversary Proceedings were filed by the debtors in two chapter 11 cases, each involving an Anguillan offshore bank – National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking Trust) Ltd. and Caribbean Commercial Investment Bank Ltd. (the “Debtor Banks”).

Introduction

In trotting a path out of Chapter 11, debtors in most cases will need to engage various key stakeholders, some of whom are not entitled to a distribution in the bankruptcy. As a form of remuneration, non-debtors may insist on receiving a release of liability - not only from claims belonging to the debtor, but also the claims of third-parties - in exchange for their support and contribution to the case.

There have been some important recent legal developments that will likely impact acquisition finance. This article will survey some of the more notable ones.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 15, 2012, overturned1 a prior District Court decision stemming from the bankruptcy case of Tousa, Inc., affirming a bankruptcy court’s earlier 2009 decision that had ordered the return, on fraudulent transfer grounds, of over $400 million that had been repaid to prior lenders of the Tousa parent company in connection with a secured financing to the parent and its subsidiaries.

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a framework through which representatives of foreign insolvency proceedings can commence ancillary U.S. proceedings and obtain relief from U.S. courts in aid of foreign restructurings. For a foreign insolvency proceeding to be recognized by a U.S. bankruptcy court under Chapter 15, the proceeding must, among other things, involve a “debtor” whose assets or affairs are subject to the control of the foreign court.

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court has confirmed that in multiple-debtor chapter 11 cases, the cramdown rules set forth in section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code must be applied on a per debtor basis as opposed to a per plan basis. See In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC, No. 11-13338 (MFW), 2011 WL 6749058 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 22, 2011) (“Jameson”) and In re Tribune Co., No. 08-13141 (KJC), 2011 WL 5142420 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 31, 2011) (“Tribune”).

Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 prohibits the sale of a security unless a registration statement is in effect. This prohibition on the sale of unregistered securities does not apply to exempt transactions. One such exemption is found in the Bankruptcy Code — section 1145 provides that securities issued under a plan of reorganization may be exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. For debtors, the recent decision of Golden v. Mentor Capital, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153415 (D. Ut. Sept.