[Crypto-Bankruptcy Series] The FTX Bankruptcy: First Week Motions, Jurisdictional Squabbling, and Other Unusual Developments
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Chapter 15, Crypto-Bankruptcy Series, Cryptocurrency, International and Comparative, Priority | 0

By Megan McDermott (University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Law)

Megan McDermott

Note: This post is the first post in a series of posts on bankruptcies of cryptocurrency companies and the emerging issues they pose.  This series is being managed by the Bankruptcy Roundtable and Xiao Ma, SJD at Harvard Law School, xma [at] sjd [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu.

Check the HLS Bankruptcy Roundtable periodically for additional contributing posts by academics and practitioners from institutions across the country.

***

The FTX bankruptcy isn’t just significant for its size and scope, but also for some extraordinary procedural wrinkles.  Here are a few notable developments from the first six weeks of the FTX bankruptcy:

  • Unusual delays. Most Chapter 11 bankruptcies are the products of weeks, if not months, of behind the scenes planning.  As a result, the typical debtor is able to file a flurry of first day motions that ensure a high degree of debtor control – at least during the early stages of bankruptcy, while creditors are scrambling to find representation and determine strategy.  Not so with FTX, due to the fact that current CEO John Ray took over from Sam Bankman-Fried immediately before the Chapter 11 filing.  Ray has testified that FTX’s abysmal record-keeping and absence of corporate controls have made it extremely difficult to get an accurate picture of FTX’s assets and liabilities.  As a result, the traditional first day motions were heard a week into proceedings, and second day motions were postponed to January 11. The delay makes it easier for individual creditors to organize push back to the debtors’ plans, which could in turn impact overall creditor recovery.
  • Jurisdictional squabbling. Bahamian regulators are mounting a spirited fight to retain control over the liquidation of FTX Digital Markets, one of the many entities in FTX’s global web of related businesses.  The Bahamian regulators backed off their initial strategy of asking the Southern District of New York to open a parallel Chapter 15 proceeding.  Nonetheless, they are currently arguing that the Delaware Bankruptcy Court lacks authority to halt liquidation under Bahamanian law.  Given the rumors that Bahamanian authorities encouraged (or possibly compelled) Bankman-Fried to give Bahamanian customers preferential treatment in withdrawing frozen funds, there is a lot at stake in this jurisdictional skirmish.  In his testimony to Congress, Ray mentioned this “extraordinary pushback” but expressed confidence that these efforts would be rejected in favor of the transparency and clarity that Chapter 11 promises to all stakeholders.
  • Sealed submissions. Despite this commitment to transparency, FTX has asked to file a variety of court submissions under seal, including creditor lists.  FTX’s lawyers argue that revealing creditor names would make them a target for hacking or, at the very least, poaching by competitors of FTX.  The U.S. Trustee has objected strenuously to sealing these records, on the grounds that these risks are the trade-offs of a public and transparent proceeding.  In addition, Dow Jones, Bloomberg, and other media interests have moved to intervene in order to oppose the debtor’s efforts to avoid disclosing creditor identities.  In the Celsius bankruptcy, the Southern District of New York decisively rejected efforts to keep parts of the docket under seal.  Judge Dorsey hasn’t taken a clear position yet but has agreed to keep creditor lists under seal – for now.
  • Preferential transfers. During Congressional questioning, Ray was asked about rumors of looting in the months preceding the Chapter 11 filing, as well as some dubious post-petition maneuvers.  There are also likely to be a number of insider transfers, especially since at least one of Bankman’s Fried’s parents (Stanford Law Professor Joseph Bankman) has reportedly received payments from FTX.  Transfers between FTX and Bankman-Fried and his family may be in the billions.  Expect some bombshells as FTX seeks to use Chapter 11 to avoid these transfers.
  • Property of the estate. Major stakeholders are already wrangling to have their assets returned on the ground that these assets should not be considered property of the estate.  Of particular note are two motions filed by committees representing U.S. and non-U.S. exchange customers.  The customers are arguing that they are entitled to have their crypto assets returned rather than having to wait in line for a pro rata recovery alongside other unsecured creditors.  Although some commentators have suggested that FTX’s terms of service may support these arguments, the legal authority for how to treat these assets is far from clear.  Another early mover is crypto lender BlockFi, which is staking its claim to 56 million Robinhood shares that Alameda Research had pledged as collateral shortly before FTX’s Chapter 11 filing.  These shares have lost around 40% of their value since early November, which is part of the reason BlockFi has filed its own Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of New Jersey.  Bankruptcy courts across the country will likely see many similar ripple effects before FTX’s creditors see any recovery.
  • Executory contracts. Given FTX’s lavish public relations spending and celebrity co-branding, many FTX partners are undoubtedly eager to extricate themselves from the now-disgraced company.  For example, the publisher of the League of Legends video game filed an early motion for relief from the automatic stay, asking the court’s permission to halt their contractual obligation to promote FTX at various events.  Right before the new year, FTX granted their wishes, moving to reject that cobranding deal alongside a long list of other executory contracts.  FTX’s motion details almost two dozen sponsorship deals, ranging from the Golden State Warriors to Berkeley Athletics to an international cricket competition.  FTX also hopes to cast aside paid celebrity endorsements from the likes of Gisele Bundchen and Shohei Otani.  In the motion, FTX explained that “the Contracts are not integral to the Debtors’ Chapter 11 efforts, are not otherwise beneficial to the Debtors’ estates and present burdensome liabilities.”  Accordingly, FTX requested that the contracts be deemed terminated immediately.  That means the Miami Heat Arena may soon be in the market for a new naming rights partner.  (See photo.)  [Editor’s Note: On January 11, 2023, the bankruptcy court approved the termination of FTX’s naming rights: https://www.nba.com/news/miami-dade-coun…]

Preference Due Diligence in the Crypto Winter
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Fiduciary Duties, Preference | 0

By Michael Rosella (Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP) and Dan McElhinney (Stretto)

Michael Rosella
Dan McElhinney

The crypto winter has arrived! Among many other issues of first impression for bankruptcy courts is the question of how the increased due diligence standards for preference actions set forth in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”) will play out in a crypto case. The SBRA raised the bar on the due diligence needed to pursue preference litigation, requiring the debtor or trustee to assess “known or reasonably knowable affirmative defenses” before moving forward.

This article first assesses lingering disagreements related to the “heightened” pleading standard as applied to preference causes of action set forth in In re Valley Media and its progeny. Next, we delve into the cases interpreting the new due diligence standard set forth in the SBRA, as there is already disagreement on how to interpret the SBRA. Certain courts suggest the new due diligence standard constitutes an element of a preference claim that must be specifically pled in a complaint in order to avoid dismissal; others do not. Yet courts in this latter group, while eschewing the idea of a new element, do consider any information regarding pre-complaint due diligence efforts in the complaint, nonetheless. We then consider the issues unique to the opaque world of a cryptocurrency debtor that may impact the debtor or trustee’s ability to satisfy a heightened due diligence standard. Questions relating to the potential differences in assessing cash vs. crypto transfers and whether debtors or trustees will have access to key demographic and transaction data are considered. For example, whereas a debtor dealing in cash transfers would likely have bank statements, canceled checks, and access to accounting systems with basic transferee information, debtors transferring cryptocurrency to the independent digital wallet of a customer or counterparty would be less likely to have access to basic information necessary to satisfy a heightened due diligence standard.

We also provide key takeaways that highlight measures that cryptocurrency debtors should take to comply with the pleading and due diligence requirements. For example, a debtor in a cryptocurrency case should include in the complaint a recitation of its efforts to conduct reasonable due diligence — including efforts to obtain information needed to consider affirmative defenses, as well as reference to demand letters sent inviting the transferee to assert such defenses—to minimize any dismissal risk.

Click here to read the full article.

 

[Texas Two-Step and the Future of Mass Tort Bankruptcy Series] The Texas Two-Step: The Code Says it’s a Transfer
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, fraudulent transfer, Reorganization, Statutory Interpretation, Texas Two-Step and the Future of Mass Tort Bankruptcy Series | 0

By Mark Roe and William Organek (Harvard Law School)

Note: This is the seventh in a series of posts on the Texas Two-Step, the bankruptcy of LTL Management, and the future of mass tort bankruptcies.  Check the HLS Bankruptcy Roundtable throughout the summer for additional contributing posts by academics from institutions across the country.

Earlier posts in this series can be found here (by Jin Lee and Amelia Ricketts), here (by Jonathan C. Lipson), here (by Jared A. Ellias), here (by Anthony Casey and Joshua Macey), here (by David Skeel), and here (by Ralph Brubaker).

***

Mark Roe
William Organek

Considerable attention is now being paid to the Texas Two-Step in bankruptcy. The Two-Step anticipates the movement of assets and liabilities from one corporate entity to another, via a divisive merger that splits the assets and liabilities of the original entity. After the movement of the assets and liabilities, the liabilities sit in one entity (often a subsidiary of a larger enterprise). Meanwhile, the liabilities are separated from many of the assets (in the most controversial form of the Two-Steps), which sit in another entity. The entity with the bulk of the liabilities then files for bankruptcy. The Two-Step is central to the Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) bankruptcy of a subsidiary, aiming to separate the talc liabilities from J&J’s extensive assets.

When assets are transferred from a firm that is thereby rendered insolvent, or when the assets are transferred with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, the transferred assets can, of course, be recovered by the transferring firm as a fraudulent transfer.  Bankr. Code § 548.  Similar transactions are regularly accomplished under corporate structures as spinoffs: the firm moves assets into a subsidiary, for example, and then “spins” off the subsidiary’s stock to the firm’s stockholders. After the spinoff the old stockholders own two companies, one with the assets (and possibly some of the liabilities of the just-created subsidiary) and the other with the liabilities (and any remaining assets) of the original company.

The Texas divisive merger statute creates a fraudulent transfer conundrum, because it says movements of assets pursuant to a divisive merger are not transfers.  If there’s no transfer, there’s no fraudulent transfer liability, as there must first be a transfer for there to be liability.

If the bankruptcy process were ousted of power to control fraudulent transfers, then the debtor firm would have more freedom to move assets and liabilities in ways that would allow the firm to escape liability. No judge would get to the meaty issues (e.g., was the transferring firm insolvent? were the transfers done with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors? is the bankrupt firm with the bulk of the liabilities an alter ego or successor of the original firm?) because there’d never have been a triggering transfer.

The Texas statute itself is clear on its face that there’s no transfer under Texas law:

When a merger takes effect . . . all rights, title and interests to all . . . property owned by each . . . party to the merger is allocated . . . as provided in the plan of merger without . . . any transfer or assignment having occurred . . .

Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 10.008(a) (emphasis added).

Commentators have noted that a Two-Stepping debtor might make such an argument. While it has not yet been explicitly raised in the LTL bankruptcy, the commentators anticipated correctly that such an argument was coming.  In another pending Texas Two-Step bankruptcy, In re DBMP, the debtor made this argument at length. In an oral ruling1 delivered a little more than a week ago, on July 7, Judge Craig Whitley agreed with the key plain meaning premises of the Two-Step argument but ultimately rejected it as facilitating “wholesale fraud.”

The court began by accepting the debtor’s interpretation that, under a plain meaning reading of the Texas statute, no transfer occurred; and under a plain meaning reading of section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, a transfer is a necessary predicate for a fraudulent transfer to have occurred. Hence, a plain meaning construction of section 548 and the Texas statute means no fraudulent transfer exposure.

Judge Whitley saw where such a plain meaning reading led, but refused to go there, rejecting the debtor’s conclusion. Going down the plain meaning route would, he said, lead to absurd results, leaving plaintiffs with “no recourse whatsoever.” And such a reading would contradict another provision of the Texas statute, which states that a divisive merger is not meant to “abridge any . . . rights of any creditor under existing law,” Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 10.901. Finally, Judge Whitley went deep: such a plain language reading of the Texas statute would run contrary to longstanding general principles of Anglo-American fraudulent transfer law.

Judge Whitley’s conclusion was in our view correct. But the conclusion can be reached more directly—by a plain meaning reading of the Bankruptcy Code.

The bankruptcy courts have already been instructed by Congress not to pay attention to the Texas statute, even when the state statute declares that an asset disposition in a divisive merger is not a transfer.  True, considerable policy issues (e.g., supremacy of federal law, the extent to which state property and contract law is incorporated into the bankruptcy process) could well be brought to bear if the Bankruptcy Code were unclear here. But the most straightforward way to answer the question raised in DBMP comes from a parsimonious textual analysis of the Code.

Here’s the Bankruptcy Code’s two-step ouster of the Texas Two-Step:

Step 1:

The text of the fraudulent transfer statute, section 548, begins: “The trustee may avoid any transfer . . .  of an interest of the debtor in property . . . ” (emphasis added). If we stop there, a basis might be had for examining state law for whether a transfer cognizable under the Bankruptcy Code has taken place.  Property is, after all, transferred under state law.

But the Code does not say that state law governs whether a movement of property is a bankruptcy transfer. The Code itself defines the term “transfer” and does so independently of state laws’ appellations, leading to Step 2 of the ouster.

Step 2:

Section 101(54) defines what a “transfer” is for bankruptcy purposes, such as section 548 (governing fraudulent transfers).  It states: “The term ‘transfer’ means . . .  each mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with (i) property; or (ii) an interest in property.”

The Code thereby instructs bankruptcy courts to conclude that a transfer has occurred for each “mode . . . of disposing of . . . property . . . .”  A divisive merger under Texas law is surely a “mode . . . of disposing of . . . property. . . .”  As a result, for bankruptcy purposes a Texas two-step is a transfer, whatever the Texas authorities decide to call it.  And, therefore, the Texas Two-Step should have no import in bankruptcy for determining whether there’s been a transfer for bankruptcy purposes.  Property has been disposed of. Thus, for Code purposes there is a “transfer.”  The first statutory predicate to considering whether there has been a fraudulent transfer has been satisfied and the court could then go on to the other, meaty fraudulent transfer issues. The Texas Two-Step is a transfer because the Bankruptcy Code says it is.

While we reach an identical conclusion to that of Judge Whitley, and we do not fault his reasoning from the bench, our analytic path is better in the long run for bankruptcy decisionmaking. The court’s reliance upon the best way to interpret the potential contradictions of the Texas Business Organizations Code is a precarious foundation for the ruling. One could imagine another bankruptcy court, faced with the Texas statute’s contradictions (“it’s not a transfer” vs. “it’s not in derogation of any other right”), interpreting and concluding differently.2 Another judge might not consider such a result as absurd as Judge Whitley and we do. And yet another bankruptcy court could feel compelled to certify questions to the Texas Supreme Court on how to interpret the Texas divisive merger statute and its impact.

***

The new mass tort bankruptcies present major issues of policy and statutory construction for which answers will not be assured and apparent. But the question of whether there is a transfer for bankruptcy purposes is clear. A divisive merger is a disposition of property and, hence, the Code says it’s a transfer, thereby triggering the opening prerequisite to there being a fraudulent transfer.

The Code says so. Plainly.

—

1: A recording of the hearing is embedded in the linked PDF, which PDF may need to be downloaded in order to access the recording; the relevant portion of the hearing begins around 20:15 in the recording.

2: See Curtis W. Huff, The New Texas Business Corporation Act Merger Provisions, 21 St. Mary’s L.J. 109, 122-25 (1989).

 

 

Critical Vendor Order Insufficient to Protect Critical Vendors Against Preference Claims
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Roundtable Updates, Chapter 11, Preference | 0

By Nicholas A. Koffroth (Fox Rothschild)

Nicholas A. Koffroth

In Insys Liquidation Trust v. MeKesson Corporation (In re Insys Therapeutics, Inc.), No. 21-50176 (JTD), No. 21-50176, 2021 WL 3083325 (Bankr. D. Del. July 21, 2021), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware reminded practitioners to exercise caution when analyzing the scope of protections offered by critical vendor orders.  The order at issue in Insys Therapeutics provided that “[t]he Debtors are authorized, but not directed . . . to maintain and administer the Customer Programs” and that “[n]othing contained . . . in this Final Order is intended to be or shall be construed as . . . (c) a waiver of any claims or causes of action that may exist against any creditor or interest holder.”  These common provisions proved critical in the Court’s holding that “something more is required” to insulate critical vendors from preference liability.

In the opinion, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by a group of critical vendors for three reasons.  First, the Court held that preferential payments that occur before the entry of a critical vendor order cannot be protected by a subsequent authorization to pay outstanding prepetition claims unless specifically provided in the order.  Second, the permissive language of the critical vendor order did not support the vendors’ claim that the prepetition payments would necessarily have been authorized had they been made postpetition.  Third, the critical vendor order expressly preserved the estates’ claims against critical vendors.  Additionally, the Court analyzed and rejected application of the limited “critical vendor defense.”

The article discusses the Court’s holding in greater detail and offers practical considerations for practitioners. The full article is available here.

Another Court Adopts Majority View in Approving Bankruptcy Trustee’s Use of Tax Code: Look-Back Period in Avoidance Actions
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Roundtable Updates | 0

By Daniel J. Merrett (Jones Day) and Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day)

Daniel J. Merrett
Mark G. Douglas

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) to avoid fraudulent transfers is an important tool promoting the bankruptcy policies of equality of distribution among creditors and maximizing the property included in the estate. One limitation on this avoidance power is the statutory “look-back” period during which an allegedly fraudulent transfer can be avoided—two years for fraudulent transfer avoidance actions under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and, as generally understood, three to six years if the trustee or DIP seeks to avoid a fraudulent transfer under section 544(b) and state law by stepping into the shoes of a “triggering” creditor plaintiff.

The longer look-back periods governing avoidance actions under various state laws significantly expand the universe of transactions that may be subject to fraudulent transfer avoidance. Indeed, under a ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the look-back period in avoidance actions under section 544(b) may be much longer—10 years—in bankruptcy cases where the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or another governmental entity is the triggering creditor. In Mitchell v. Zagaroli (In re Zagaroli), 2020 WL 6495156 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2020), the court, adopting the majority approach, held that a chapter 7 trustee could effectively circumvent North Carolina’s four-year statute of limitations for fraudulent transfer actions by stepping into the shoes of the IRS, which is bound not by North Carolina law but by the 10-year statute of limitations for collecting taxes specified in the Internal Revenue Code.

Zagaroli does not break new ground on the power of a bankruptcy trustee or DIP to bring avoidance actions under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Nevertheless, the court’s endorsement of the majority approach on the availability of a longer look-back period in cases in which the IRS is a creditor is notable. Widespread adoption of this approach could significantly augment estate avoidance action recoveries.

The full article is available here.

Tribune II: Law Firm Perspectives
by | posted in: Avoidance, Financial Firms and Safe Harbors, fraudulent transfer, Statutory Interpretation | 0

By Xiao Ma (Harvard Law School)

Xiao Ma

On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit issued its amended opinion in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, 2019 WL 6971499 (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2019), which held the “safe harbor” provision in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code covers Tribune Company’s payments made to public shareholders as Tribune constitutes a “financial institution” in pursuance with the Bankruptcy Code definition, and such definition includes the “customer” of a financial institution when the financial institution acts as the customer’s “agent or custodian…in connection with a securities contract”.

The Second Circuit’s opinion was controversial in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018) on the scope of safe harbor, with law firms perceiving it as moving away from the position of Merit by opening new room for application of safe harbor protection. Jones Day suggests that the Tribune’s reasoning “avoided the strictures of Merit”, while Nelson Mullins finds it “shifting the focus from the financial institution as a ‘mere conduit’ to an ‘agent’.” Kramer Levin comments that the decision represents a “dramatic, and perhaps unexpected, extension of the safe harbor from the position it occupied in the immediate aftermath of Merit.” Weil calls it throwing the 546(e) safe harbor a lifeline.

Firms also find the case paving a way to protect LBO payments from subsequent attacks. King & Spalding notes that the Second Circuit’s opinion provides protection for recipients involved in LBO transaction where the debtor is the “customer” of the intermediary financial institutions. Cadwalader believes that the decision may “narrow the impact” of Merit, as market participants could structure their transaction to involve a financial institution thereby bypassing the “mere conduit” carve-out. Skadden agrees on the likely trend of structured LBOs, highlights that the customer defense is “likely to continue gaining momentum” after the Second Circuit’s decision. Parties would ensure they meet the “financial institution” and “customer” criteria methodically articulated in Tribune. “An appropriately structured principal/agent relationship could continue to shelter transfers or distributions within the ambit of section 546(e) safe harbors,” says Weil, adding that the operative facts will be key to strengthen the position.

Finally, Gibson Dunn notes that Tribune is not binding on other circuits. It remains to be seen whether such holding will be extended to different circumstances by other courts. “Some courts may find (in contrast to the Second Circuit) that the Supreme Court in Merit could not possibly have intended that its narrowing of the section 546(e) safe harbor be so easily vitiated by an argument that the Court itself acknowledged in a footnote,” says Kramer Levin.

In a prior Roundtable post, Professor Bussel noted that a plain meaning interpretation of the term “financial institution” should not include the customers of commercial banks, thus precluding a sharp change from Merit.

For Roundtable’s other posts on Tribune, see Bankruptcy Court Disagrees with Second Circuit’s Holding in Tribune, Tribune Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation Roundup. For Roundtable discussions relating to the 546(e) safe harbor, please refer to the tag #Safe Harbors.

Second Circuit Fumbles Tribune on Reconsideration
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Roundtable Updates, Financial Firms and Safe Harbors, fraudulent transfer, Statutory Interpretation | 0
Daniel J. Bussel

By Daniel J. Bussel (UCLA School of Law)

The Second Circuit recently issued its revised opinion in Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, determining that a debtor-transferor that effectuates a transfer involving a securities contract in its capacity as the customer of a commercial bank is itself a “financial institution” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code section 101(22)(A) and therefore the transfer is protected under section 546(e).

This ruling has critically important implications for the avoiding powers of the bankruptcy trustee. Section 546(e) insulates all transfers involving securities by or to a financial institution from avoidance except as an “actual fraud” under section 548(a)(1)(A). Virtually all transferors are customers of commercial banks and almost any transfer can be effectuated with funds transferred through the agency or in the possession of a commercial bank. The result is the virtual repeal of the avoiding powers as to any transfer involving securities that is not an actual fraud on creditors, undoing centuries of fraudulent transfer and preference law.

These considerations are powerful enough that the Second Circuit, if necessary in light of the statute’s plain language, should have striven mightily to avoid interpreting the term “financial institution” so as to include the customers of commercial banks. The Code’s avoiding power sections read as a whole make no sense if limited only to cases involving transfers by entities that are not customers of commercial banks. Moreover, such a reading of section 101(22) flies in the face of Merit Management, the recent, directly applicable, Supreme Court precedent.

The full article is available here.

For more posts on the scope of section 546(e), see Ralph Brubaker, Understanding the Scope of the § 546(e) Securities Safe Harbor Through the Concept of the “Transfer” Sought to Be Avoided.

Debate Intensifies as to Whether the Bankruptcy Code’s Avoidance Provisions Apply Extraterritorially
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Administration and Jurisdiction, fraudulent transfer | 0

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.

Do Managers Strategically Change Their Disclosure Before a Debt Covenant Violation?
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Administration and Jurisdiction, Bankruptcy Roundtable Updates | 0

By Thomas Bourveau (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Derrald Stice (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), and Rencheng Wang (University of Melbourne)

Little is known about how managers change their voluntary forecasting behavior as a debt covenant violation approaches. We find that management forecasts are more optimistic in the period leading up to a debt covenant violation (“DCV”), based on a sample of firms in the period before they disclose a DCV in their financial statements. Additionally, we find that managers who are most optimistic in their forecasts also take on more risk and increase dividend payouts before violations. Those managers tend to take actions consistent with last-resort efforts to delay the discovery of DCV and opportunistically engage in activities likely to be curtailed by lenders in the event of a covenant violation.

In further analyses, we partition our sample and find that managers are more likely to optimistically bias their earnings forecasts when they have a higher risk of losing control rights in the event of a DCV. Managers are less likely, however, to bias forecasts if lenders have greater ability to detect bias or if managers have higher reputation concerns. Finally, we perform additional analyses to rule out potential reverse causality and omitted variable issues. Overall, our results are consistent with managers changing their disclosure behavior in order to conceal upcoming covenant violations from debtholders and to justify taking actions that are favorable to equity investors and would likely be opposed by debtholders.

The full article is available here.

The Year in Bankruptcy: 2017
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Administration and Jurisdiction, Bankruptcy Roundtable Updates, Cramdown and Priority, Legislation, Supreme Court, Valuation, Workouts and Pre-Packs | 0

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

In their annual chronicle of business bankruptcy, financial, economic, and related developments in the U.S., Charles M. Oellermann and Mark G. Douglas of Jones Day review the most significant events of 2017, including business bankruptcy filing statistics and industry trends; newsworthy developments regarding sovereign and commonwealth debt; the top 10 public-company bankruptcies of the year; notable private and cross-border bankruptcy cases; significant business bankruptcy and U.S. Supreme Court bankruptcy rulings; bankruptcy-related legislative and regulatory developments; noteworthy chapter 11 plan confirmations and exits from bankruptcy; and more.

The article is available here.

1 2 3 4