Search

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in In re Tower Air, Inc., 416 F.3d 229 (3rd Cir. 2005), queried: 'How far will the federal courthouse door swing open for a direct suit against corporate directors and officers for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties?' In firmly answering this question, the Third Circuit has widened the door for bankruptcy trustees and creditors' committees, by making it easier, at the pleading stage, to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in federal court.

In an article in last month's issue, we questioned the desirability of equitably subordinating or disallowing claims transferred post-petition, and explored the implications that a decision pending in the Enron bankruptcy court might have on distressed debt markets. Now, in an expansively reasoned opinion, the Enron court partially answered those questions. The court denied a motion to dismiss certain counts seeking to equitably subordinate certain bank claims in the hands of post-petition assignees on the basis of allegedly inequitable prepetition conduct engaged in by Enron's pre-petition lenders.

It looks like James Sprayregen and his team at Kirkland & Ellis have brought United Airlines to the verge of a successful exit from Chapter 11. That is all the more remarkable because a year ago, they seemed nowhere close. United was struggling with a host of problems, not the least the one that concerned me, the retention of its fleet of aircraft. The creditors who controlled those aircraft had the leverage of ' 1110 of the Bankruptcy Code that allowed them to repossess the planes as if the bankruptcy did not even exist. When some of those creditors attempted to exercise the right, however, the bankruptcy court -- notwithstanding ' 1110 -- enjoined them. And it did so on a theory that seemed to contradict the essential idea that bankruptcy is a procedure for the collective negotiation and resolution of creditors' claims: by coordinating their bargaining, United successfully argued, the aircraft creditors were guilty of an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade. The ensuing litigation finally established that United was wrong: There are no qualifications to ' 1110's absolute protection of aircraft creditors' rights, and coordinated bargaining by creditors of a common debtor in bankruptcy is permitted under the antitrust laws. But, it took not one, but two opinions of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to establish those principles.

Financing deals have become increasingly complicated as parties attempt to raise capital and take advantage of accounting and tax incentives. These transactions often face scrutiny when one party files for bankruptcy. During a Chapter 11 reorganization, a debtor must use all tools at its disposal to best restructure its obligations. In contrast, a creditor must work to ensure it receives the best possible return. The term "lease" is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code. Due to this lack of a clear definition, creditors and debtors will often attempt to recharacterize agreements between the parties. In this context, a secured creditor or debtor may argue that a "lease" is actually a disguised secured financing. In the converse, a party could also argue a secured financing is actually a "true lease." This is due to the Bankruptcy Code's different treatment of secured debt and leases. Depending on the factual scenario, this differing treatment could significantly change the parties' obligations. This article reviews the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in <i>United Airlines, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.</i>, 416 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2005). In this decision, authored by Judge Easterbrook, the court held that it must look to the substance of a transaction and beyond the label given by the parties to determine whether it is a "true lease."

In many cases, a creditor in a bankruptcy case (the 'Primary Creditor') has the benefit of a guaranty, an escrow, or a letter of credit provided by a third party (the 'Subrogee') to which it can turn in order to satisfy its claim against the debtor. When the Subrogee pays the debtor's obligation to the Primary Creditor after the debtor has filed a petition in bankruptcy, the Subrogee will in most cases be entitled to assert a subrogation claim against the debtor in the bankruptcy case. Below, we discuss the relevant considerations in determining whether a subrogation claim is valid.

Bankruptcy claims traders are currently on the lookout for a decision from the Enron bankruptcy court that could add significant uncertainty to distressed debt markets. The court has under advisement the issue of whether claims sold post-petition are subject to disallowance under ' 502(d) or equitable subordination as a result of pre-petition conduct or receipt of avoidable transfers by the transferor.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Without any reservation, it is safe to say that insolvency crisis facing the U.S. auto industry ' from myriad Tier 2 suppliers right up to the legacy-burdened OEMs ' has become the cause c'l'bre of the professional restructuring community, and for objectively good reason. In this year alone, at least eight parts makers (among them, Collins &amp; Aikman Corp., Meridian Automotive Systems, Inc., Tower Automotive, Inc., Jernberg Industries, Inc., Harvard Industries, Inc., Jacobs Industries, Inc., and Delphi Corp.) filed for Chapter 11 relief. And many industry experts believe that these cases represent merely a harbinger of even bigger things to come.

National rulings of interest to you and your practice.