Debate Intensifies as to Whether the Bankruptcy Code’s Avoidance Provisions Apply Extraterritorially

by Charles M. Oellermann and Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day).

The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. Several bankruptcy courts have addressed this issue in recent years, with inconsistent results.

In a recent example, in In re CIL Limited, 582 B.R. 46 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, disagreeing with other courts both within and outside its own district, ruled that the “transfer of an equity interest in a U.K. entity to a Marshall Islands entity was a foreign transfer” and that the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions do not apply extraterritorially because “[n]othing in the language of sections 544, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code suggests that Congress intended those provisions to apply to foreign transfers.”

The decision further muddies the waters on an issue that has become increasingly prominent as the volume of cross-border bankruptcy cases continues to grow and cross-border transactions become ubiquitous. The split on this issue exists not merely between courts in different jurisdictions, but also among courts in the Southern District of New York, where the majority of cross-border bankruptcy cases have traditionally been filed.

The full article is available here.

Loan to Bond Substitution: An Empirical Analysis on the Functioning of the Substitution Channel for Eurozone Firms

By Francesco Ruggiero (University of Naples Federico II)

This paper contributes to the literature by enhancing the understanding of the link between bank debt and bond market debt in the Eurozone. This implication is particularly important for small firms that usually rely heavily on bank loans, and are likely to be excluded from the credit market during crises. In this paper, I find that firms based in the Eurozone can substitute bonds for loans in response to changing credit conditions. But the substitution is only partial, and firms will end up raising less funds than needed. Despite the bank centric feature of the European financial market that encourages firms to rely a lot on bank loans, bonds still serve as a substitute to loans. Firms in the Eurozone choose to substitute bonds for loans especially in periods in which the banking sector is in distress or the central bank implements policies to enhance credit.

The comparison with the U.S. firms (provided as benchmark) requires an in-depth analysis on the relative roles of the banking system and the financial market in Europe and the U.S. The divergence in results might indicate that policies enacted by the Fed in the U.S. might not be the best fit for European system. European Central Bank (“ECB”)  should thus tackle similar problems differently. In principle, the central bank’s expansive monetary policies should have affected bank lending positively as well. The reason why it did not work as expected along this transmission channel is that  the banks tend to hoard extra liquidity received from the ECB to deal with potential  sudden shortages in the future.

The full article is available here.

 

 

Optimal Deterrence and the Preference Gap

By Brook Gotberg (University of Missouri School of Law)

It is generally understood that the way to discourage particular behavior in individuals is to punish that behavior, on the theory that rational individuals seek to avoid punishment. Laws aimed at deterring behavior operate on the assumption that increasing the likelihood of punishment, the severity of punishment, or both, will decrease the behavior. The success of these laws is also evaluated by how much the targeted behavior decreases. The law of preferential transfers, which effectively punishes creditors who have been paid prior to the bankruptcy has been defended on the grounds that it deters a race to collect from a struggling debtor. However, deterrence theory suggests that the low likelihood of punishment and the cap on punishment associated with preference law make it a very poor deterrence. Further, statements pulled from interviews with affected creditors, debtors, and attorneys demonstrate that in practice, preference law does little or nothing to deter targeted behavior, and in the process imposes significant costs. The weaknesses of preference law call for its significant revision to place a greater focus on specific categories of creditors to be punished on account of their pre-bankruptcy activities.

The full article is available here.

 

The Changing Landscape of Consensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans: Does Silence = Consent?

By Kathrine A. McLendon and Lily Picón (Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP)

There has been increasing focus on what evidences implicit consent to a third-party release in a chapter 11 plan.  This article examines the statutory framework underlying consensual third-party releases and then discusses recent cases in which consensual releases have been challenged by the Office of the United States Trustee and by courts sua sponte. Although various forms of implicit consent were often approved in the past with little or no scrutiny, these cases highlight trends toward stronger indicia of consent and greater attention to the factual context of the particular case.  These developments also underscore the importance of making the appropriate evidentiary record to support approval of consensual third-party releases. We conclude with practice pointers to support the case for confirmation of chapter 11 plans containing consensual third-party releases.

The full article can be found here.