By Jonathan C. Gordon (Jones Day).
Consider an insolvency proceeding outside the United States. To obtain ancillary relief in the U.S., an authorized representative from that foreign proceeding can file a petition with a U.S. court under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. In chapter 15, the foreign representative acts as a liaison between the U.S. proceeding and the foreign proceeding. For example, the representative must update the U.S. court of substantial developments in the foreign proceeding.
But what happens when that foreign representative (appointed by a foreign court) commits misconduct in the U.S. proceeding; what can the U.S. court do? As I explain in my paper, courts have struggled with a solution. For one, the Bankruptcy Code does not address this situation (nor does the related UNCITRAL Model Law). And common law is equally unavailing; courts have tried and suggested potential solutions, but those approaches (and others) fall short.
In my paper, I propose a novel solution that is simple yet effective: the U.S. court should request the foreign court to replace the foreign representative. I also analyze legal issues related to the solution’s implementation, such as judicial authority, burden of proof, timing, and interim relief.
The full paper, recently published in the ABI Law Review, can be accessed here.
By Saule T. Omarova (Cornell University)
“Too big to fail” – or “TBTF” – is a popular metaphor for a core dysfunction of today’s financial system: the recurrent pattern of government bailouts of large, systemically important financial institutions. The financial crisis of 2008 made TBTF a household term, a powerful symbol of the pernicious society-wide pattern of “privatizing gains and socializing losses.” It continues to frame much of the public policy debate on financial regulation even today, ten years after the crisis. Yet, the analytical content of this term remains remarkably unclear.
In a forthcoming article, I take a fresh look at the nature of the TBTF problem in finance and offer a coherent framework for understanding the cluster of closely related, but conceptually distinct, regulatory and policy challenges this label actually denotes. I begin by identifying the fundamental paradox at the heart of the TBTF concept: TBTF is an entity-centric, micro-level metaphor for a complex of interrelated systemic, macro-level problems. I argue that, while largely unacknowledged, this inherent tension between the micro and the macro, the entity and the system, critically shapes the design and implementation of the key post-2008 regulatory reforms in the financial sector.
To trace these dynamics, I deconstruct the TBTF metaphor into its two basic components: (1) the “F” factor focused on the “failure” of individual financial firms; and (2) the “B” factor focused on their “bigness” (i.e., relative size and structural significance). Isolating and examining these conceptually distinct components helps to explain why the potential for failure (and bailout) of individual firms – or the “F” factor – continues to be the principal focus of the ongoing TBTF policy debate, while the more explicitly structural, relational issues associated with financial firms’ “bigness” – or the “B” factor – remain largely in the background of that debate.
Analyzing post-crisis legislative and regulatory efforts to solve the TBTF problem through this simplifying lens reveals critical gaps in that process, which consistently favors the inherently micro-level “F” factor solutions over the more explicitly macro-level “B” factor ones. It also suggests potential ways of rebalancing and expanding the TBTF policy toolkit to encompass a wider range of measures targeting the relevant systemic dynamics in a more direct and assertive manner. Admittedly, implementing such deliberately structural measures would require a qualitative shift in the way we think and talk about the financial system and its dysfunctions – not an easy precondition to meet in practice. Yet, as I argue in the article, this deep attitudinal shift is the necessary first step toward finally achieving the lofty – and persistently elusive – goal of eliminating the TBTF phenomenon in finance.
The complete article is available for download here.
By Sarah Paterson (London School of Economics & Political Science)
In a recent article, I argue that we have repeatedly failed to identify clearly our concerns for fairness in different types of debt restructuring situations, and that this has confused corporate bankruptcy policy debate. To defend the article’s thesis, I build a theoretical frame by unpacking the principles and the procedural demands of fairness from diverse fields of scholarship such as moral and political philosophy, biological sciences, psychology, organisation theory, group theory and economics. I apply this theoretical frame to three very different types of debt restructuring: a restructuring of a small or medium sized enterprise; a restructuring of a large corporate; and a restructuring of a financial institution in English law. In each case, a fairly typical fact pattern is outlined to ground the analysis, and the quality and extent of the fairness concerns examined.
The analysis in the article concentrates exclusively on fairness. It does not consider the trade-off between fairness and other objectives (such as cost reduction), or utilitarian objections (such as concern that a situation which differentiates between classes of stakeholder in its approach to the fairness of the case would make stakeholders worse off overall), or arguments that what we might consider to be questions of fairness should properly be reinterpreted as economic questions. In short, its objective is not to argue that fairness should prevail over all other considerations, but rather to explore, as an initial question, the quality of fairness in each of the situations with which it is concerned.
S. Paterson, ‘Debt Restructuring and Notions of Fairness’ (2017) 80(4) Modern Law Review 600 available here.
By James M. Wilton (Ropes & Gray, LLP)
The majority federal law test for recharacterization of insider debt in bankruptcy establishes a multi-factor test drawn from federal tax cases. The test is problematic and has been rejected by Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals in favor of a state law rule of decision. The U.S. Treasury, in fact, has moved away from use of multi-factor tests even in tax cases because they are unworkable and produce “inconsistent and unpredictable results.”
In an article published this month in The Business Lawyer, I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve the circuit split over debt recharacterization in favor of a state law rule of decision. The article is intended for transactional lawyers interested in structuring transactions to minimize debt recharacterization risk and for bankruptcy litigators interested in understanding the arguments both for and against application of a federal or a state law rule of decision. For the circuits that have endorsed a state law rule of decision for debt recharacterization, the article examines the appropriate test for determining choice of law and surveys the substantive state law of debt recharacterization in thirteen jurisdictions, including New York and Delaware.
The article concludes that debt recharacterization under state law allows equity sponsors and other corporate insiders to provide credit support to distressed businesses, with greater assurance that loans will be enforceable both under state law and in bankruptcy court.
The full article is available here.1
- ©2019. Published in The Business Lawyer, Vol. 74, Winter 2018-2019, by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association or the copyright holder.
By Jared A. Ellias (University of California, Hastings) & Robert Stark (Brown Rudnick LLP)
On the eve of the financial crisis, a series of Delaware court decisions added up to a radical change in law: Creditors would no longer have the kind of common law protections from opportunism that helped protect their bargain for the better part of two centuries. In this Article, we argue that Delaware’s shift materially altered the way large firms approach financial distress, which is now characterized by a level of chaos and rent-seeking unchecked by norms that formerly restrained managerial opportunism. We refer to the new status quo as “bankruptcy hardball.” It is now routine for distressed firms to engage in tactics that harm some creditors for the benefit of other stakeholders, often in violation of contractual promises and basic principles of corporate finance. The fundamental problem is that Delaware’s change in law was predicated on the faulty assumption that creditors are fully capable of protecting their bargain during periods of distress with contracts and bankruptcy law. We show through a series of case studies how the creditor’s bargain is, contrary to that undergirding assumption, often an easy target for opportunistic repudiation and, in turn, dashed expectations once distress sets in. We further argue that the Delaware courts paved the way for scorched earth distressed governance, but also that judges can help fix the problem.
The full article is available here.
By Robert K. Rasmussen (University of Southern California Gould School of Law)
It is common to observe that investors receive both cash flow rights and control rights against a borrower. The crucial differences between these two “rights” are rarely focused on. Cash flow rights are legal entitlements. Outside of bankruptcy, failure to pay entitles a lender to resort to a legal remedy against the borrower. Inside of bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code structures the way in which these legal entitlements will be adjusted. Control rights are different. They do not confer direct power over the business, nor do they provide lenders with a judicial remedy that allows them to assert control. Rather, they work indirectly. The Bankruptcy Code, in turn, pays scant attention to a lender’s control rights.
This disparate treatment stems from the lending contract. That agreement provides enforceable rights to cash and as we have seen in recent years – there is little limit to the creativity in dividing up cash flow rights. The same contract, however, does not place control in the hands of a lender, even on a contingent basis because legal doctrines threaten creditors who put their hands on the levers of power. Outside of bankruptcy, the lingering shadow of lender liability doctrine leads lawyers to counsel clients to avoid contracting for control upon a borrower’s default. Inside of bankruptcy, lenders that exercise what a court finds to be excessive control face the threat of having their claims equitably subordinated. In addition to these threats, it is far from clear that a bankruptcy court would enforce a contract that gave direct control to the debtor’s lenders should the debtor default. These restrictions on contracting, however, are questionable. Opening up the contract space for direct contracting on control could increase contracting surplus.
The full article is available here.
By Donald S. Bernstein, Timothy Graulich, Marshall S. Huebner, Darren S. Klein, Brian M. Resnick, Christopher Robertson, Damian S. Schaible, Eli J. Vonnegut and Jacob Weiner (Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP).
In In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., No. 17-20793, 2019 WL 237365 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision strongly suggesting that (i) make-whole premiums are not payable in bankruptcy to unsecured and undersecured creditors and (ii) unsecured creditors in solvent-debtor Chapter 11 cases are entitled to postpetition interest only at the federal judgment rate—not the higher full contract rate. The Fifth Circuit found “compelling” the debtors’ argument that a make-whole premium owed to certain unsecured noteholders under the prepetition notes purchase agreement should be disallowed as a claim for unmatured interest pursuant to section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, departing from the majority view. While distressed companies may rejoice in this decision, creditors—particularly unsecured and undersecured creditors—will need to reconsider the likelihood of collection of make-whole premiums for distressed companies that are able to file for bankruptcy protection in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, and to evaluate the risk that courts in other circuits follow the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning. Importantly, the UltraPetroleum decision will likely create additional incentives for distressed companies to file for bankruptcy in the Fifth Circuit if potentially large make-whole premiums are payable to unsecured or undersecured creditors.
In addition, the Fifth Circuit’s guidance on rates of postpetition interest owed to unsecured creditors in solvent-debtor Chapter 11 cases may influence courts in other jurisdictions in solvent-debtor Chapter 11 cases.
The full article, which describes the make-whole analysis in the context of the recent Momentive and Energy Future Holdings decisions and the postpetition interest rate dispute, is available here.
By O. Cem Ozturk (Georgia Institute of Technology – Scheller College of Business), Pradeep K. Chintagunta (University of Chicago), & Sriram Venkataraman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Kenan-Flagler Business School)
We empirically study the effect of Chrysler’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on the quantity sold by its competitors in the U.S. auto industry. The demand for competitors could increase as they may benefit from the distress of the bankrupt firm (competitive effect). On the other hand, competitors could experience lower sales if the bankruptcy increases consumer uncertainty about their own viability (contagion effect). A challenge to measuring the impact of bankruptcies is the coincident decline in economic conditions stemming from the Great Recession and the potential effect of the “cash for clunkers” program. To identify the effect of the bankruptcy filing, we employ a regression-discontinuity-in-time design based on a temporal discontinuity in treatment (i.e., bankruptcy filing), along with an extensive set of control variables. Such a design is facilitated by a unique data set at the dealer-model-day level which allows us to compare changes in unit sales in close temporal vicinity of the filing. We find that unit sales for an average competitor reduce by 28% following Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing.
Our results suggest that this negative demand spillover effect is driven by a heightened consumer uncertainty about the viability of the bankrupt firm’s rivals. For example, we show that the sales of competitors’ vehicles that compete within the same segments as the bankrupt firm’s vehicles or that provide lower value for money are affected more negatively in response to the Chrysler filing. We also observe more web search activity for Chrysler’s competitors after the filing.
The full article can be found here.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Liberty Street Economics Blog has run a series of five posts seeking to estimate the total value destroyed by the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s Chapter 11 and Lehman’s investment bank affiliate’s liquidation through separate Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) proceedings.
Erin Denison, Michael Fleming, and Asani Sarkar, of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group, estimate the total value destruction for Lehman, its creditors, and stakeholders to be approximately between $46 billion to $63 billion (between 15 to 21 percent of Lehman’s pre-bankruptcy consolidated assets), excluding expenses from the SIPA proceedings (an additional $1.4 billion) and the costs of resolving Lehman’s foreign subsidiaries. These estimates also exclude boarder spillover effects on the economy caused by Lehman’s collapse.
Denison, Fleming, and Sarkar suggest the main drivers of value destruction include: professional fees and expenses ($5.9 billion for Chapter 11 proceedings with an additional $1.36 billion for SIPA proceedings); liquidity costs for creditors during the lengthy proceeding ($15 billion); and lost relationships between Lehman and its equity underwriting clients ($23 billion). They break down these estimates of the value destroyed through a series of four posts, analyzing the direct costs (expenses paid to third parties for services provided during bankruptcy) and the indirect costs (opportunity costs for the firm, its creditors, and its stakeholders).
The first post on Creditor Recovery in Lehman’s Bankruptcy can be found here. The second post on Lehman’s Bankruptcy Expenses can be found here. The third post on Customer and Customer and Employee Losses in Lehman’s Bankruptcy can be found here. The fourth post on Indirect Costs of Lehman’s Bankruptcy can be found here. The final summary post can be found here.
For previous Roundtable posts on the valuation and resolution of Lehman, see Steven Lubben, “Lehman’s Derivative Portfolio”; Mark J. Roe, and Stephen D. Adams, “Restructuring Failed Financial Firms in Bankruptcy: Selling Lehman’s Derivatives Portfolio.”
(This post was authored by Ryan Rossner, J.D. ’19.)
By Edwin Fischer and Ines Wöckl (University of Graz)
Many debtholders, whether private households, companies, or states, are caught up in high-interest long-term loans. At the same time, economic developments in the Eurozone over the past few years have created a low-interest environment in which prepaying an existing loan and simultaneously refinancing into a new loan can be advantageous from the borrower’s point of view. By redeeming an existing loan before maturity and refinancing into a loan with a lower interest rate, the amount of interest owed to the lender can be reduced significantly. Intuitively debt restructuring seems advantageous whenever the nominal interest rate of the new loan is lower than that of the old loan. However, prepayment considerations are more complex since debt restructuring entails transaction costs. These include a possible penalty for the early redemption of the existing loan, called a prepayment penalty, as well as credit charges and a possible loan disbursement fee for taking out a new loan. We use the method of differential investment to analyze under which circumstances loan and bond prepayments make sense for debtholders. We provide an exact solution concept as well as an easy-to-use approximation for calculating the critical upper limits for the nominal interest rate of the new loan up to which prepayment and subsequent refinancing is optimal. The calculations address both fixed and variable rate loans and consider whether the debt agreement is repaid at maturity or in annuities.
The full article is available here.