Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act

posted in: Municipal Bankruptcy | 0

Puerto Rico is facing the most critical fiscal situation in its history. Its public corporations are especially compromised, overwhelmed by growing deficits and unsustainable debt loads but barred from reorganizing under federal law. Last June, Puerto Rico enacted the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act, which allows eligible public corporations to restructure their debt burdens.

The Recovery Act is likely preempted by federal bankruptcy law. Although the Recovery Act was justified as a valid exercise of the Commonwealth’s police power, the statute is likely unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Where state law conflicts with federal law — as does the Recovery Act with section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code — the state law is preempted. On February 6, 2015 Judge Francisco Besosa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held this was the case in Franklin California Tax-Free Trust v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Blue Mountain Capital Management v. Governor Alejandro Garcia-Padilla.

Yet despite the Recovery Act’s probable constitutional infirmity, the threat of potential public corporation default nonetheless exerted sufficient pressure to motivate temporary consensual relief. In choosing this approach, Puerto Rico risks weakening outside investor interest in future securities offerings. But perhaps such high-stakes federalism will prompt Congress to reconsider the basis for and desirability of Puerto Rico’s idiosyncratic treatment under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, and elsewhere in federal law.

This article was published in the Harvard Law Review, February 2015. To read the full article, click here.

This post comes from Robert Niles (J.D./M.B.A. ’16), a member of the Bankruptcy Roundtable team

The Bankruptcy Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the Limited Rights of Secured Creditors in Bankruptcy

By Charles J. Tabb, University of Illinois College of Law

2005-tabb The received wisdom in bankruptcy jurisprudence is that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause independently limits the exercise of the bankruptcy power under the Bankruptcy Clause. Accordingly, secured creditors in bankruptcy are assumed to enjoy a constitutional right to receive the full value of their collateral in the bankruptcy case.

The thesis of this article is that the received wisdom is wrong. Professor Tabb argues that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not and should not constrain the powers of Congress to modify the substantive rights of secured creditors under the Bankruptcy Clause. Instead, the only meaningful limits on the modification of substantive rights of stakeholders pursuant to the bankruptcy power are those that inhere in the Bankruptcy Clause itself.

The Bankruptcy Clause has only two limitations, both of which are extremely easy to satisfy regarding the treatment of secured creditors: that the law be “uniform,” and “on the subject of bankruptcies.”

The article first explains why it matters whether we continue to subscribe to the received wisdom that the Takings Clause limits what can be done to secured creditors in bankruptcy. Then it examines in considerable detail the historical evolution of bankruptcy jurisprudence in this area. Finally, the article assesses how we might best strike a prudential and meaningful constitutional balance.

To read the full article, click here.

ISDA Resolution Stay Protocol: A Brief Overview

On November 12, 2014, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) officially released the ISDA 2014 Resolution Stay Protocol (the “Protocol”), a mechanism that contractually imposes a stay on certain default rights in ISDA contracts between adhering parties during the resolution of a significantly important financial institution (SIFI) counterparty or one of its affiliates.

The first section of the Protocol—addressing default rights under Special Resolution Regimes (“SRRs”) (e.g., the U.S.’s OLA and FDIA)—is relatively uncontroversial. It merely ensures that adhering cross-border counterparties will be bound by the preexisting stay provisions of a foreign SRR, even if the jurisdictional limitations of the SRR would normally exempt such cross-border counterparties. This section went into affect for the 18 adhering banks on January 1, 2015.

The second section of the Protocol—addressing default rights under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code—has been met with significantly more contention. This section confines, to a limited extent, the use of currently existing “safe harbors” in the Code, by contractually limiting certain cross-default rights in ISDA contracts in the case of a counterparty’s affiliate’s bankruptcy, so that the affiliate is not also forced into bankruptcy, where close-out rights are safe-harbored. Significantly, this section will not go into effect until further regulations are promulgated by the Federal Reserve and other U.S. regulators. The concept behind the Protocol’s second section is that a failure of one part of a SIFI should not necessarily lead to defaults and close-outs of derivatives and repos sitting in affiliates of the SIFI, if the affiliate is still performing on its obligations.

The HLS Bankruptcy Roundtable has focused on the Code’s safe harbors previously. Click here for an analysis of the effect of the safe harbors on systemic risk; click here for an argument for narrowing the safe harbors for repos.

Congress is also currently considering the issue of the safe harbors in the case of a SIFI failure. Click here and here for previous coverage of currently pending legislation, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act, which would impose a short stay on financial contracts in the case of a SIFI resolution under the Bankruptcy Code.

For a full discussion of the Protocol, please see Mayer Brown’s Legal Update, here.

(This post was drafted by Stephanie Massman, J.D. ’15.)

Fixing the Trust Indenture Act to Allow Restructuring Votes

posted in: Workouts and Pre-Packs | 0

By Mark J. Roe, Harvard Law School

Roe 124

The Trust Indenture Act of 1939 bars binding bondholder votes on core payment terms. The inability of deal proponents to get a binding vote can lead the debtor to file for an otherwise unnecessary bankruptcy. To get a deal done when there are economically-important holdouts, deal proponents often seek exit consents to induce enough holdout bondholders to reluctantly tender into a deal they don’t otherwise like, by stripping the bond indenture of those covenants on which bondholders can vote.
Exit consent transactions have generally been upheld, despite that in analogous corporate settings such distortions induce doctrinal and deal structure issues. Recent decisions indicate that exit consents that oust the bondholders from an effective individual choice ran afoul of the Trust Indenture Act, which may well have been the intent of the 1930’s drafters of the law.
Regardless, the anti-voting provision is anachronistic. It was passed when bankruptcy law did not respect bondholder votes without a judge’s substantive approval of the deal, but the Code was updated in 1978 to allow binding votes. Bondholders should also be free to agree in advance to a binding vote in an out-of-court workout. More restructurings will succeed and avoid bankruptcy. And proponents will have less reason to resort to arm-twisting with exit consents. Similar individualized consent difficulties and holdout issues have hobbled sovereign debt restructurings, with sovereign debt issues moving in recent years to include majority vote provisions.
For my analysis of the incentives and structure of bond restructurings in light of the TIA, see 97 Yale L.J. 232 (1987).

SDNY Issues Novel Opinion Holding that Out-of-Court Restructurings May Violate Noteholder Rights Under the Trust Indenture Act

posted in: Workouts and Pre-Packs | 0

By Alan F. Denenberg, Joseph A. Hall, Michael Kaplan, Jeffrey M. Oakes, Richard D. Truesdell, Jr., and Sarah Ashfaq of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Companies have long relied upon out-of-court restructurings to keep them afloat during times of financial distress. In Marblegate Asset Management v. Education Management Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2014), the Southern District of New York found that a proposed out-of-court restructuring, objected to byminority creditors, likely violated provisions of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), a Depression-era federal statute intended to protect rights to payment under a TIA-qualified indenture, which governs debt securities offered in any U.S. public offering. Unlike earlier TIA cases, a critical element of the proposed restructuring in Marblegate was explicitly permitted by the governing indenture, and no consent of the objecting creditors was required by the indenture. Nonetheless, the Court read the TIA to give creditors a substantive right to protection against out-of-court restructurings that they did not consent to on an individual basis, although it ultimately did not grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. But the potential for a minority creditor to obstruct a company’s ability to restructure, especially in light of indenture provisions the creditor knowingly accepted at the time it purchased its securities, could have serious consequences. While the debtor company’s actions in Marblegate were certainly aggressive, the Court’s view, if adopted by other courts, could have the potential to create an overriding ability for any creditor to block a restructuring — even when permitted by the indenture — directly leading to more court-administered bankruptcies. If followed to that conclusion, the opinion would be a potentially material and unwelcome change to the legal landscape.

To read more, click here.

Bankruptcy Survival

By Lynn M. LoPucki and Joseph W. Doherty, UCLA School of Law

lopuckidoherty Of the large, public companies that seek to remain in business through bankruptcy reorganization, only 70% succeed.  The assets of the other 30% are absorbed into other businesses.  Survival is important both because it is efficient and because it preserves jobs, communities, supplier and customer relationships, and tax revenues.  This Article reports the findings of the first comprehensive study of who survives.  Eleven conditions best predict survival.  All are concurrently statistically significant in our best regression model. 1. A company that even hints in the press release announcing its bankruptcy that it intends to sell its business is much more likely to fail. 2. Companies whose cases are assigned to more experienced judges are more likely to survive. 3. Companies headquartered in isolated geographical areas are more likely to fail. 4. Companies that file with higher leverage are more likely to survive. 5. If a creditor’s committee is routinely appointed, the company is more likely to fail. 6. Companies with DIP loans are more likely to survive. 7. Companies that prepackage or prenegotiate their plans are more likely to survive. 8. Companies are more likely to survive if pre-filing interest rates are low. 9. Larger companies are more likely to succeed if they are larger. 10. Manufacturers are more likely to survive. 11. Companies with positive pre-filing operating income are more likely to survive. System participants can improve survival rates by shifting cases to more experienced judges and perhaps also by greater attention to the decisions to appoint committees, prenegotiate plans, obtain DIP loans, and publicly seek alliances. The article is forthcoming in the UCLA Law Review, May, 2015. Click here to read further.

Momentive Ruling May Pave the Road for Below-Market “Takeback Paper” Cramdowns of Secured Creditors

posted in: Cramdown and Priority | 0

By Donald S. Bernstein, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

bernstein In a lengthy and widely discussed bench ruling delivered on August 26, 2014, Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that Momentive Performance Materials could satisfy the cramdown standard of Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code as to its oversecured creditors by distributing to them replacement notes paying a below-market interest rate, under the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s Till opinion. Rejecting arguments made by the objecting creditors that a market rate of interest was required, Judge Drain approved the use of a rate computed by reference to the prime rate, with an additional margin to compensate the creditors for the risk of non-payment, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code does not require an interest rate that covers creditors’ costs or provides them with a profit. We note that, if followed, Judge Drain’s ruling may shift the leverage in future Chapter 11 cases in favor of debtors and unsecured creditors, potentially enabling them to satisfy secured creditors with long-term replacement notes at below-market rates, which could incentivize some debtors to avoid the use of market-rate takeout exit financing and potentially provide additional value for unsecured creditors at the expense of secured creditors.

For more analysis, navigate here for PDF download.

Seventh Circuit Warns Intervenors Not to Sleep on Their Rights

By Eric G. Pearson, Foley & Lardner LLP
09794It’s an ancient principle of equity, drawn from Roman law: Equity relieves the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. And it sums up quite well the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in SEC v. First Choice Management Services, Nos. 14-1270 & 14-2284 (Sept. 11, 2014). First Choice did not involve equity (or even cite the maxim); it concerned an untimely motion to intervene. But the principle was the same, and it’s a good lesson for potential intervenors.

The court, in an opinion written by Judge Posner, affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to intervene as untimely in a receivership proceeding. The intervenor knew that the receiver proposed to sell the property to which the intervenor had an adverse claim six months before seeking to intervene and had even been involved for over a decade in what the court described as “protracted negotiations” with the receiver to reclaim the property. But the intervenor never was a litigant and, the court held, “had no possible excuse for waiting for six months after [learning of the receiver’s adverse claim] before moving to intervene.” Instead, it had “wait[ed] till the last minute to try to throw a monkey wrench into the deal.”

The Seventh Circuit was unwilling to brook that sort of “dawdling,” which created only more work for the receiver, purchaser, and district court. It affirmed the denial of the motion and dismissed an independent appeal challenging the sale order. Please see a full copy of this article here.

The Agglomeration of Bankruptcy

By Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Anna Milanez, & Vladimir Mukharlyamov

In “The Agglomeration of Bankruptcy,” Professor Benmelech and his coauthors examine the spread of bankruptcy by analyzing the ways in which bankrupt firms impose costs on nearby non-bankrupt competitors. The authors argue that the normally positive economies of agglomeration created by stores in close proximity to one another can become detrimental during downturns. When a store is in distress, proximity works to amplify the negative effects of distress. The result is that retail stores in distress impose costs, such as decreasing sales, on nearby peers, which can ultimately lead to store closures and ultimately bankruptcy.

The authors use a novel and detailed dataset of all national chain store locations and closures across the United States from 2005 to 2010. The authors show that stores located in proximity to those of national chains that are liquidated are more likely to close themselves. Importantly, this effect is stronger for stores in the same industry as the liquidating national chain as compared to stores in industries different from that of the liquidating chain. Further, the geographical effect of store closures on neighboring stores is more pronounced in financially weaker firms.

For the full article, navigate here.

This summary was drafted by Robert Niles (J.D./M.B.A. ’16)

——
The HLS Bankruptcy Roundtable will be off-line for the holidays. We will be back in January.

House Passes Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act

On December 1, 2014, the House of Representatives passed, with bipartisan support, H.R. 5421—the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014 (FIBA), a bill that would amend the Bankruptcy Code to better allow for the resolution of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). FIBA (previously discussed in Roundtable posts here and here) is similar in many respects to the bankruptcy amendments proposed in another bill introduced in the Senate (previously covered here) and to the “chapter 14” proposal from the Hoover Institution, but there are some key differences among these proposals.

First of all, the Senate version would entirely repeal the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), the current regulatory receivership alternative to traditional bankruptcy (and to some, the only current viable option) to resolve failed SIFIs. Both FIBA and the Hoover Institution’s version, however, would keep the OLA in place as an alternative.

Additionally, each proposal takes a different approach to the issue of federal funding in a SIFI resolution, which is provided in an OLA resolution. The Hoover Institution’s version does not explicitly provide for such federal funding, but it does contemplate it and condition it upon a showing that no private funding is available. FIBA is silent on the matter, and the Senate version explicitly prohibits it.

Lastly, both FIBA and the Senate proposal solely focus on facilitating a single-point-of-entry (SPOE) resolution of a SIFI, whereas the Hoover Institution’s proposal seeks to accommodate both an SPOE recapitalization and a conventional reorganization of a SIFI. An SPOE recapitalization would make debt and equity at the financial holding company take the brunt of losses, while substantially all of the holding company’s assets would be transferred to a new bridge institution and cash would be pushed down into shaky subsidiaries to prevent their bankruptcy. A conventional reorganization (or liquidation) of a SIFI would largely track traditional bankruptcy approaches, with the troubled subsidiaries entering bankruptcy.

These and other differences among the proposals are some of the most debated aspects in the SIFI resolution reform discussion. Moreover, which version (if any) ultimately passes through both houses of Congress and is signed by President Obama may set significant precedent in resolution regimes worldwide.

For previous HLS Bankruptcy Roundtable coverage of the viability and limits of an SPOE approach in bankruptcy, click here and here.

This post was composed by Stephanie Massman (J.D. ’15)

1 36 37 38 39 40