In a 2-1 opinion, the Second Circuit overruled the district court in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp., finding no violation of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) in connection with an out-of-court debt restructuring.
Background
Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (the "TIA") states the right of a bondholder to receive payments pursuant to an indenture security cannot be "impaired or affected without the consent of such holder." Historically, issuers and bondholders have not engaged in extensive litigation based on the argument that Section 316(b) provides a broad restriction protecting bondholders' substantive right to actually receive such payments.
At the end of my October blog post, Dear Debtor, You Said I was Your First Priority, a VIP!, I suggested that you might want to join a “support group” called the “Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors” (fondly referred to as the OCC or GUCCs), if you felt angry or depressed about your unsecured claim status. Admittedly, I may have led you astray.
In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.
Companies that sell goods or extend credit to customers expect to be paid. When customers become insolvent, or file for Chapter 11 protection, those expectations are no longer realistic. Yet, there are a number of "creditor remedies" that can be utilized to maximize recovery from the insolvent customer. This article addresses one such "remedy": a carve-out from the pre-petition secured lender.
Several recent cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have created ambiguity about when distressed exchange offers violate Section 316(b) of the 1939 Trust Indenture Act (the “TIA”). It appears that plaintiffs’ lawyers are using this ambiguity to challenge distressed exchange offers. The threat of litigation may give minority bondholders a powerful tool to hinder less than fully consensual out-of-court restructurings and provide them with increased leverage in negotiations.
In today's low interest rate environment, the difference between a contractual interest rate and the federal judgment rate can be quite significant. It is not surprising, therefore, that this issue has become hotly litigated in cases involving solvent Chapter 11 debtors. Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Colfin Bulls Funding A v. Paloian (In re Dvorkin Holdings), 547 B.R. 880 (N.D. Ill.
Decision clarifies standards for priority treatment under section 507(a)(7); important implications in retail bankruptcy cases for debtors, creditors - and consumers
Overview
Introduction
The Supreme Court will consider these key questions next term in Czyzewski v Jevic Holding Corp:(1)
In the November/December 2014 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we discussed a decision handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware addressing the meaning of “unreasonably small capital” in the context of constructively fraudulent transfer avoidance litigation. In Whyte ex rel. SemGroup Litig. Trust v.