Credit Default Swaps – those largely unregulated “side bets” over the likelihood of specific companies defaulting on one or more of their credit obligations, which were all the rage during the beginning of the decade - have become, in light of the 2008 financial crisis, “the financial instrument that scholars, journalists, government officials and even some prominent financiers love to hate.”

The problematic impact of CDS’s on firms in financial distress – and their separate treatment under existing securities “safe harbors” in the US Bankruptcy Code – have likewise provoked further commentary and calls for reform from the insolvency community (some of which has been covered in various posts on this blog, and which is summarized here).

But despite the furor over much-maligned CDS’s, not everyone is casting aspersions.

Last week, Seton Hall’s Michael Simkovic and Davis Polk’s Benjamin Kaminetzky released a paper arguing that CDS pricing at the time of a credit event (such as a loan made in connection with an LBO) can – when combined with other market information about a company’s debt securities – provide important indicators of a company’s solvency at the time of that transaction.

Though it requires 58 pages (plus 12 pages of appendices) to develop, Simkovic’s and Kaminetzky’s basic premise is relatively simple:

Fraudulent transfer analysis is too often susceptible to manipulation by self-interested experts, and too prone to after-the-fact “second guessing” by bankruptcy courts, to be consistently reliable and predictable.  Efficient securities markets are the best contemporaneous guides to the solvency of a debtor with publicly traded debt.  As a result, bankruptcy courts attempting to determine the solvency of a debtor at the time of an alleged fraudulent transfer should use contemporaneous credit-market data as a (or as the) key indicator of the debtor’s solvency.

 The idea is more than an abstract concept: Simkovic and Kaminetzky cite two relatively recent decisions in which bankruptcy courts applied public-market analysis to determine the debtor’s solvency and the resulting avoidability of a fraudulent transfer, each using equity market valuations contemporaneous with the time of the transfers.  Simkovic and Kaminetzky extend this approach, arguing that credit-market instruments and their derivatives – such as credit yield spreads and CDS pricing - provide a more reliable indication of solvency than the debtor’s equity.

The idea of employing public market data is of limited use in cases where the debtor is closely held – or where public credit-market data is not readily available.  But Simkovic’s and Kaminetzky’s research represents yet another recent and important effort by scholars to impose greater uniformity and predictability on the question of whether a debtor is – or has become – insolvent as a result of a pre-bankruptcy transfer for less-than-equivalent value (for another approach to the same general problem, see an earlier post here).

In light of the extensive, highly-leveraged financing that took place between 2004 and 2007 – and the correspondingly high anticipated default rates when that same debt matures over the next several years – Simkovic’s and Kaminetzky’s work also renews the focus on an important question, directly relevant to any inquiry into an alleged fraudulent transfer:  

What did the participants in an allged fraudulent transfer – and all of those responsible for due diligence regarding that transfer – believe about the debtor’s present or resulting solvency at the time the transfer was made?  And what (if anything) was the basis for their belief?  

From the 9th Circuit last week, a decision providing creditors and their representatives with a potentially new source of preferential recoveries: pre-petition criminal restitution payments.

Jeffrey and Faye Silverman – electrical contractors – were indicted in 2005 for fraud and underpayment of workers’ compensation insurance premiums.  In March of that year, they paid the California State Compensation Insurance Fund $101,531 in restitution as part of a plea agreement and their court-ordered sentence.  Less than 60 days later, they sought relief under Chapter 7.

Their trustee sought recovery of the restitution payment from the State Fund under the theory that the payment was a preferential transfer under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Both sides moved for summary judgment.  For its part, the State Fund argued that Section 547(b) doesn’t apply to criminal restitution payments, citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36 (1986) and Becker v. County of Santa Clara (In re Nelson), 91 B.R. 904 (N.D. Cal. 1988).  Kelly held that criminal restitution payments are non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(7).  Nelson extended Kelly to hold that payments on such non-dischargeable obligations are not recoverable as preferences.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California was not persuaded – nor was the District Court, which heard the matter on appeal following entry of summary judgment in the trustee’s favor.

The Ninth Circuit agreed.  Finding that criminal restitution payments are, in fact, subject to the preference statute, the Ninth Circuit held that State Fund enjoyed no “judicial exception” to Section 547(b)’s reach.  In the 3-judge panel’s view, an obligation’s non-dischargeability is separate and distinct from recovery of its pre-petition payment as a preference.  Further, the restitution payments to State Fund were “to or for the benefit of” State Fund within the contemplation of Section 547(b)(1) - State Fund’s arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

The decision is an important one for creditors’ representatives and committees seeking possible additional sources of recovery where the debtor has been attempting to resolve criminal problems pre-petition.

In a globalized business environment, it should be no surprise that some of the more interesting – and better – economic reporting on the US economy now comes from offshore.

Last month, China’s Xinhua news agency reported that California leads the nation in small-business bankruptcies.  The report – based on data reported by Equifax – covers small business filings under all applicable chapters of the Bankruptcy Code (i.e., Chapters 7, 11, and 13).  The Xinhua report (it broke the story a day before the Orange County Register) is here.

Equifax’s reporting shows that California remains the most impacted state, with the Los Angeles and Riverside/San Bernardino MSA’s leading the nation in small business bankruptcy flings by a significant margin.  

The chart below provides a closer look at this trend.

                                                    # of
                 MSA         # of Bankruptcies Bankruptcies  % of Increase
                                    Q1 2009        Q1 2010
    Los Angeles-Long
     Beach-Glendale, CA                899          1035          15.13%
    Riverside-San
     Bernardino-Ontario,
     CA                                663           736          11.01%
    Sacramento-Arden-
     Arcade-Roseville,
     CA                                462           522          12.99%
    Houston-Sugar Land-
     Baytown, TX                       365           399           9.32%
    San Diego-Carlsbad-
     San Marcos, CA                    345           387          12.17%
    Portland-Vancouver-
     Beaverton, OR-WA                  276           386          39.86%
    Denver-Aurora, CO                  304           382          25.66%
    Santa Ana-Anaheim-
     Irvine, CA                        359           370           3.06%
    California -Rest of
     State                             233           335          43.78%
    Phoenix-Mesa-
     Scottsdale, AZ                    234           327          39.74%
    Dallas-Plano-
     Irving, TX                        348           323          -7.18%
    Chicago-Naperville-
     Joliet, IL                        395           314         -20.51%
    Atlanta-Sandy
     Springs-Marietta,
     GA                                336           304          -9.52%
    Oregon -Rest of
     State                             235           299          27.23%
    ---------------                    ---           ---          -----
    New York-White
     Plains-Wayne, NY-
     NJ                                335           272         -18.80%
    ------------------                 ---           ---         ------

Inc. Magazine picked up the story last week, commenting that “no area has been insulated from the recession and the economy clearly isn’t rebounding quickly enough.”

No kidding.

International readers of this blog – and those in the US who practice internationally – are more than likely aware of the doctrine of “comity” embraced by US commercial law.  In a nutshell, “comity” is shorthand for the idea that US courts typically afford respect and recogntion (i.e., enforcement) within the US to the judgment or decision of a non-US court – so long as that decision comports with those notions of “fundamental fairness” that are common to American jurisprudence.

In the bankruptcy context, “comity” forms the backbone for significant portions of the US Bankruptcy Code’s Chapter 15.  Chapter 15 – enacted in 2005 – provides a mechanisim by which the administrators of non-US bankruptcy proceedings can obtain recogntion of those proceedings, and further protection and assistance for them, inside the US.

But in at least some US bankruptcy courts, “comity” for non-US insolvencies only goes so far.  Last month, US Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Argesti, of Pennsylvania’s Western District, offered his understanding of where “comity” stops – and where US bankruptcy proceedings begin.

Judge Argesti currently presides over Chapter 15 proceedings commenced in furtherance of two companies – Canada’s Railpower Technologies Corp. (“Railpower Canada”) and its wholly-owned US subsidiary, Railpower US.  The two Railpower entities commenced proceedings under the Canadian Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) in Quebec in February 2009.  Soon afterward, their court-appointed monitors, Ernst & Young, Inc., sought recogntition of the Canadian Railpower cases in the US.

Railpower US’ assets and employees – and 90% of its creditors – were located in the US.  The company was managed from offices in Erie, PA.  Nevertheless, it carried on its books an inter-company obligation of $66.9 million, owed to its Canadian parent.  From the outset, Railpower US’ American creditors asserted this “intercompany debt” was, in fact, a contribution to equity which should be subordinate to their trade claims.  Judge Argesti’s predecessor, now-retired Judge Warren Bentz, therefore conditioned recognition of Railpower US’ case upon his ability to review and approve any proposed distribution of Railpower US’ assets.  After the company’s assets were sold, Judge Bentz further required segregation of the sale proceeds pending his authorization as to their distribution.  Finally, after the Canadian monitors obtained a “Claims Process Order” for the resolution of claims in the CCAA proceedings and sought that order’s enforcement in the US, Judge Bentz further “carved out” jurisdiction for himself to adjudicate the inter-company claim if the trade creditors received anything less than a 100% distribution under the CCAA plan.

Railpower US’ assets were sold – along with the assets of its Canadian parent – to R.J. Corman Group, LLC.  Railpower US was left with US$2 million in sale proceeds against US$9.3 million in claims (other than the inter-company debt).  The Canadian monitor indicated its intention to file a “Notice of Disallowance” of the inter-company debt in the Canadian proceedings, but apparently never did.  Meanwhile, approximately CN$700,000 was somehow “upstreamed” from Railpower US to Railpower Canada.  Finally, despite the monitor’s assurances to the contrary, Railpower Canada’s largest shareholder – and an alleged secured creditor – sought relief in Quebec to throw both Railpower entities into liquidation proceedings under Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Enough was enough for Railpower US’ American creditors.  In August 2009, they filed an involuntary Chapter 7 proceeding against Railpower US, seeking to regain control over the case – and Railpower US’ assets – under the auspices of an American panel trustee.

The Canadian monitor requested abstention under Section 305 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Significantly re-drafted in the wake of Chapter 15’s enactment, that section permits a US bankruptcy court to dismiss a bankruptcy case, or to suspend bankruptcy proceedings, if doing so (1) would better serve the interests of the creditors and the debtor; or (2) would best serve the purposes of a recognized Chapter 15 case.

Judge Argesti’s 14-page decision, in which he denied the monitors’ motion and permitted the Chapter 7 case to proceed, is one of apparent first impression on this section where it regards a Chapter 15 case.

Where the “better interests of the creditors and the debtor” are concerned, Judge Argesti’s discussion essentially boils down to the proposition that because creditors representing 85% – by number and by dollar amount – of Railpower US’ case sought Chapter 7, those creditors have spoken for themselves as to what constitutes their “best interests” (“The Court starts with a presumption that these creditors have made a studied decision that their interests are best served by pursuing the involuntary Chapter 7 case rather than simply acquiescing in what happens in the Canadian [p]roceeding.”).

The more interesting aspect of the decision concerns Judge Argesti’s discussion of whether or not the requested dismissal “best serve[d] the purposes” of Railpower’s Chapter 15 cases.  For guidance on this issue, Judge Argesti turned to Chapter 15’s statement of policy, set forth in Section 1501 (“Purpose and Scope of Application”) – which states Chapter 15’s purpose of furthering principles of comity and protecting the interests of all creditors.  Then, proceeding point by point through each of the 5 enunciated principles behind the statute, he arrived at the conclusion that the purposes of Chapter 15 were not “best served” by dismissing the involuntary Chapter 7 case.  As a result, Railpower US’ Chapter 7 case would be permitted to proceed.

Judge Argesti’s analysis appears to focus primarily on (i) the Canadian monitors’ apparent delay in seeking disallowance of the inter-company debt in Canada; (ii) the “upstreaming” of CN$700,000 to Railpower Canada; and (iii) the monitors’ apparent failure, as of the commencement of the involuntary Chapter 7, to “unwind” these transfers or to recover them from Railpower Canada for the benefit of Railpower US’ creditors.  It also rests on the fact that Railpower US was – for all purposes – a US debtor, with its assets and creditors located primarily in the US.

In this context, and in response to the monitors’ protestations that comity entitled them to judicial deference regarding the Chapter 15 proceedings, Judge Argesti noted that:

comity is not just a one-way street.  Just as this Court will defer to a [non-US] court if the circumstances require it, so too should a foreign court defer to this Court when appropriate.  In this case it was clear from the start that [this Court] expressed reservations about the distribution of Railpower US assets in the Canadian [p]roceeding . . . .  The Monitor has [not] explained how this [reservation] is to be [addressed] unless the Canadian Court shows comity to this Court.

Judge Argesti’s decision may be limited to its comparatively unique facts.  However, it should also serve as a cautionary tale for representatives seeking to rely on principles of comity when administering business assets in the US.  In addition to his more limited construction of “comity,” Judge Argesti also noted that recognition of Railpower US’ Chapter 15 case was itself subject to second-guessing where subsequently developed evidence suggested that the company’s “Center of Main Interests” was not in Canada, but in the US.

For anyone weighing strategy attendant to the American recognition of a non-US insolvency proceeding, this decision is important reading.

A great deal of scholarly ink has been spilled over last year’s well-publicized sales of Chrysler and GM, each authorized outside a Chapter 11 plan.  Some of that ink is available for review . . . here.

It’s worth noting that both Chrysler and GM have enjoyed a considerable presence in Canada.  Indeed, the Canadian government participated in the automakers’ Chapter 11 cases.  Yet their bankruptcy sales were not recognized under Canadian cross-border insolvency law, nor were Canadian insolvency proceedings ever initiated.

Why not?

Seton Hall’s Stephen Lubben and York University’s Stephanie Ben-Ishai collaborated last month to offer an answer to that question.  The essence of their article, “SALES OR PLANS: A COMPARATIVE ACCOUNT OF THE ‘NEW’ CORPORATE REORGANIZATION“ comes down to two points of difference between the Canadian reorganization process and US Chapter 11 – speed and certainty – and is captured in the following excerpt:

[B]oth the United States and Canada have well-established case law that supports the “pre-plan” sale of a debtor’s assets.  The key difference between the jurisdictions thus turns not on the basic procedures, but rather the broader context of those procedures . . . .   [I]n the United States it is generally possible to sell a debtor’s assets distinct from any obligations or liabilities associated with those assets.  Indeed, the only obligations that survive such a sale are those that the buyer willing[ly] accepts and those that must survive to comport with the U.S. Constitution’s requirements of due process.

[I]n Canada the debtor has less ability to “cleanse” assets through the sale process.  Particularly with regard to employee claims, a pre-plan sale under the CCAA is not apt to be quite as “free and clear” as its American counterpart.

The jurisdictions also differ on the point at which the reorganization procedures – and the sale process – can be invoked.  Canada, like most other jurisdictions, has an insolvency prerequisite for commencing [a reorganization] proceeding, whereas Chapter 11 does not.  And the Canadian sale process is tied to the oversight of cases by the [court-appointed] monitor: without the monitor’s consent, it is unlikely that a Canadian court would approve a pre-plan asset sale.  In the United States, on the other hand, there is no such position.  Accordingly, a [US] debtor can seek almost immediate approval of a sale upon filing.  Finally, there remains some doubt and conflicting case law in Canada about the use of the CCAA in circumstances that amount to liquidation, particularly following an asset sale.  In the US, it is quite clear that Chapter 11 can be used for liquidation.

[T]hese latter factors are the more likely explanations for the failure to use the CCAA in [GM's and Chrysler's] cases . . . .  [I]t is the questions of speed and certainty that mark[] the biggest difference between the two jurisdictions . . . .  In the case of GM and Chrysler, where the governments valued speed above all else, these issues came to the fore.

The article offers a very interesting perspective on the strategic use of specific insolvency features of different jurisdictions to effect cross-border bankruptcy sales, and is well worth the read.

A number of advanced commercial jurisdictions – such as the US, the UK, Germany, and Japan – permit a debtor’s bankruptcy administrator or trustee to pursue and recover preferential or fraudulent transfers.  Unwinding such transfers, typically made from the debtor to a third party located in the same country, is often an important source of recovery for creditors.

But what happens when the transfer crosses international borders?  More specifically, which country’s avoidance law applies:  The law of the jurisdiction where the transfer was initiated?  Or the law of the “destination” jurisdiction?

An important decision issued last Thursday by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals provides a preliminary answer for at least a portion of this question.

 “Before” Chapter 15.

Prior to the enactment of Chapter 15, US bankruptcy courts disagreed on whether – and how – the administrator of a foreign insolvency proceeding could pursue such transfers in the US.  Some courts permitted non-US administrators to pursue such recovery efforts directly (through an ancillary proceeding), under the fraudulent transfer law of the debtor’s home jurisdiction.  Others permitted such recoveries only under US law, and only through a separately filed (and far more expensive and time-consuming) Chapter 11 or 7 bankruptcy case.

“After” Chapter 15.

Chapter 15 resolved at least a portion of this debate.  Section 1521(a)(7) provides that upon recognition of a foreign proceeding, the court may grant “any appropriate relief” including “additional relief that may be available to a trustee, except for relief available under [the avoidance sections of the US Bankruptcy Code].” Section 1523(b) authorizes the bankruptcy court to order relief necessary to avoid acts that are “detrimental to creditors,” providing that, upon recognition of a foreign proceeding, a foreign representative has “standing in [the debtor’s US bankruptcy] case . . . to initiate [avoidance] actions.”  In other words, Congress appeared to clear up the question where recovery efforts are initiated under US law:  A full Chapter 11 (or 7) case is required.

But what about recovery efforts commenced under non­-US law?

Courts visiting this issue under Chapter 15 appear almost as divided as those who looked at it prior to the Bankruptcy Code’s 2005 amendments.

Two cases, both addressing the question in dicta, have gone in opposite directions.  In one, the Bankruptcy Court forbade a sale “free and clear” of an avoidable English lien on procedural grounds – but along the way, acknowledged that avoidance actions under the US Bankruptcy Code are cognizable only if the debtor is the subject of a case under another chapter of the Bankruptcy Code.  In another, the Bankruptcy Court denied a request by the administrator of a Danish insolvency proceeding for turnover of previously-garnished funds on the grounds that such turnover provisions were not applicable in Chapter 15 – but nevertheless went out of its way to note that nothing in Chapter 15’s legislative history – or in prior US cross-border law – prohibited avoidance actions commenced under the law of the debtor’s home jurisdiction.

To date, however, only one case has addressed the issue directly.

Condor Insurance and the Bankruptcy Code’s Deafening Silence.

Condor Insurance, Limited (“Condor”), a Nevis-incorporated insurer and surety bond issuer, was placed into a winding-up proceeding in its home jurisdiction in 2007.  The following year, Condor’s liquidators sought recognition in Mississippi – in part, to pursue alleged fraudulent transfers aggregating more than $313 million to Condor affiliates and principals.

The Bankruptcy Court and District Court Decisions.

The Condor defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The Bankruptcy Court agreed, and – on appeal, and in a published decision – the District Court affirmed.  Central to the District Court’s reasoning was the idea that, in US courts, “the choice of law that is to be applied to a lawsuit is determined by a court having jurisdiction over the case, and the parties are not permitted to choose whatever law they wish when filing a lawsuit.”  As a result, the District Court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the avoidance action.  Instead, it suggested that the liquidators commence and resolve the avoidance claims in Nevis – and then, upon procurement of a judgment, seek enforcement under principles of international comity.

The Fifth Circuit Decision.

In a decision issued last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals respectfully disagreed.  Writing for a 3-judge panel, Judge Patrick Higgenbotham observed Chapter 15’s “international origins” to encompass “international law.”  For the panel, Chapter 15 is not merely a procedural vehicle by which foreign administrators may cost-effectively protect assets domiciled, or control litigation originating, in the US.  Instead, foreign administrators may import the substantive insolvency law of foreign jurisdictions into US courts, which have jurisdiction to apply such law to disputes pending in the US.  See pp. 8-9 (“Whatever its full reach, Chapter 15 does not constrain the federal court’s exercise of the powers of foreign law it is to apply.”).

As a result, the statute’s silence speaks volumes.  Once recognized in the US court system through Chapter 15, foreign administrators have direct access to the panoply of federal judicial powers available to assist their administration of insolvency-related matters in the US, limited only by the specific “carve-outs” for US avoidance actions reserved in Section 1521:

“The structure of Chapter 15 provides authority to the district court to assist foreign representatives once a foreign proceeding has been recognized by the district court. Neither text nor structure suggests additional exceptions to available relief. Though the language does not explicitly address the use of foreign avoidance law, it suggests a broad reading of the powers granted to the district court in order to advance the goals of comity to foreign jurisdictions.  And this silence is loud given the history of the statute including the efforts of the United States to create processes for transnational businesses in extremis.”  Decision at pp. 9-10.

-          What About “Section Shopping?”

The Fifth Circuit recognized the appellees’ concern over “section shopping” – i.e., the strategic use of Chapter 15 (rather than Chapter 11 or Chapter 7) by foreign administrators to leverage the benefits of foreign avoidance law in US forums.  But where Congress had not taken further steps to guard against this threat, the Fifth Circuit overruled the District Court’s own efforts to do so.  In fact, Judge Higgenbotham and his colleagues did not appear bothered by the spectre of “section shopping,” noting that in the case before it – that of a foreign insurance company – Chapters 7 and 11 were not eligible relief.  Moreover, the District Court’s suggestion that the foreign administrator should simply obtain an avoidance judgment in Nevis, then seek enforcement of that judgment in the US, was “no answer.  Not all defendants are necessarily within the jurisdictional reach of the Nevis court.”  Decision at p.14.

-          What Of “Mixing and Matching?”

Instead of “section shopping,” Judge Higgenbotham saw the danger of “mixing and matching” foreign insolvency proceedings with US avoidance law, arising in connection with a Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 case.  See p. 11 (“When courts mix and match different aspects of bankruptcy law, the goals of any particular bankruptcy regime may be thwarted and the end result may be that the final distribution is contrary to the result that either system applied alone would have reached.”).  The Fifth Circuit traced the development of the UNCITRAL’s efforts to address choice of law in avoidance actions while drafting the model law that forms the basis for Chapter 15, concluding:

“The application of foreign avoidance law in a Chapter 15 ancillary proceeding raises fewer choice of law concerns as the court is not required to create a separate bankruptcy estate.  It accepts the helpful marriage of avoidance and distribution whether the proceeding is ancillary applying foreign law or a full proceeding applying domestic law—a marriage that avoids the more difficult depecage rules of conflict law presented by avoidance and distribution decisions governed by different sources of law.”  Decision at p.13.

The Fifth Circuit panel also found its own approach more consistent with that of US cross-border law that pre-dated Chapter 15, noting Bankruptcy Courts could – and sometimes did – apply either US avoidance law or foreign avoidance law to an action pending in an ancillary case under former Section 304.  At least one court, however, had criticized this approach for the same “mixing and matching” of foreign and domestic insolvency law noted by the Fifth Circuit.  See p.16 (citing and discussing In re Metzeler, 78  B.R. 674, 677 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)):

“In sum, under section 304, avoidance actions under foreign law were permitted when foreign law applied and would provide for such relief.  Congress essentially made explicit In re Metzeler’s articulation of the bar on access to avoidance powers created by the U.S. Code by foreign representatives in ancillary proceedings.”  Decision at p.16.

-          Wholesale Importation of Foreign Avoidance Actions?

As for concerns that US insolvency courts – and US businesses – might find themselves awash in avoidance claims arising under non-US law, the Fifth Circuit again reverted to the international policies undergirding the legislation:

“Providing access to domestic federal courts to proceedings ancillary to foreign main proceedings springs from distinct impulses of providing protection to domestic business and its creditors as they develop foreign markets. Settled expectations of the rules that will govern their efforts on distant shores is an important ingredient to the risk calculations of lenders and corporate management. In short, Chapter 15 is a congressional implementation of efforts to achieve the cooperative relationships with other countries essential to this objective.”

The Unanswered Question.

The Fifth Circuit’s Condor decision leaves unanswered the question of whether avoidance actions commenced under Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code – which itself references “applicable [non-bankruptcy] law” – includes foreign law.  Section 1521, by its terms, excludes avoidance actions predicated on this section.  But the Bankruptcy Court, the District Court, and the Fifth Circuit all ducked this issue.

One Manhattan bankruptcy judge recently observed, in dicta, that Section 544(b) gives the trustee the standing of a judgment lien creditor.  Because a preference action under foreign law would not appear to depend on status as a judgment lien creditor, this section would appear inapplicable to preference claims. A preference action under foreign law might therefore be available as “additional assistance” under § 1507.  See In re Atlas Shipping A/S, 404 B.R. 726, 744 at n.16 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).

But Condor’s brief analysis didn’t address preference claims.  It addressed avoidance actions, which – at least in the US – do depend upon judgment lien creditor status.  As a result, the availability of foreign avoidance actions, while resolved in the Fifth Circuit – remains likely unanswered elsewhere.

JSC BTA Bank (BTA), reportedly the second largest bank in Khazakstan, sought protection for its US-based assets through Chapter 15 last Thursday in New York’s Southern District.

The Chapter 15 filing in Manhattan appears to be part of Khazakstan’s own banking bailout for BTA.  In papers submitted to Bankruptcy Judge James Peck, BTA Chairman Anvar Saidenov represented, through BTA’s counsel, that between 2004 and 2007 BTA expanded rapidly with significant increases in its total assets and number of branches and cash offices.  This expansion was primarily funded through short- and medium-term bank borrowings and the issue of securities in the international capital markets.  Khazakstan’s credit-rating downgrade in late 2007 precluded BTA from refinancing its short-term credit lines, which in turn curtailed BTA’s ability to make new loans.

Beyond the Kazakh credit downgrades, BTA allegedly further suffered “significant losses” due to “fraudulent and ulawful transactions entered into by [BTA's] former management prior to February 2009.”

Before last February, the Republic of Kazakhstan and its Agency for Regulation and Supervision of Financial Markets and Financial Organizations (FMSA) had previously announced a proposal to recapitalize BTA as part of a broader plan to stabilize the country’s financial system. The plan involved JSC National Welfare Fund Samruk-Kazyna (Samruk-Kazyna), Kazakhstan’s sovereign wealth fund, providing financial support to struggling financial institutions. At the same time, Samruk-Kazyna acquired a controlling 75.1 % of BTA’s total share capital. BTA also continued to down-size its operating activities in response to the deteriorating market and BTA’s financial condition.

 BTA’s recapitalization triggered “change-of-ownership” clauses and demands for repayment under some of its lines of credit from foreign lenders.  These and other, continuing regulatory problems inside Khazakstan ultimately led to a preliminary restructuring plan in mid-2009.

At the end of August 2009, the Kazakh government enacted banking regulatory legislation which put into place, among other things, an insolvency regime to deal with the restructuring of financial institutions.  BTA sought protection under this new legislation less than 45 days after its enactment, thereby obtaining a stay of all relevant claims of BTA’s creditors and protection of BTA’s property from execution and attachment until completion of the restructuring.

BTA’s restructuing – presently contemplated within the third quarter of 2010 – presently contemplates that creditors of the Bank, including Samruk-Kazyna and certain related parties (excluding depositors and certain government agencies funding special loan programs) will receive a mixture of cash, senior debt, subordinated debt, other forms of debt, equity and so-called “recovery notes” in consideration for the restructuring of their claims.  Payments on the “recovery notes” will be funded by cash recoveries on any provisioned assets, litigation recoveries, and deferred tax recoveries.

The market collapse of 2008 and resulting financial crisis have led to significant reflection on a number of systemic features of our financial markets and on the stability of institutions that play significant roles in their function.

That reflection has produced a fresh round of legal scholarship on what role – if any – the federal Bankruptcy Code should play in addressing the financial difficulties of these institutions.  In a recent paper, Columbia’s Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law Edward R. Morrison asks, “Is the Bankruptcy Code an Adequate Mechanism for Resolving the Distress of Systemically Important Institutions?”

The issue, at least as put by Professor Morrison in the opening paragraphs of his paper, is framed as follows:

The President and members of Congress are considering proposals that would give the government broad authority to rescue financial institutions whose failure would threaten market stability. These systemically important institutions include bank and insurance holding companies, investment banks, and other “large, highly leveraged, and interconnected” entities that are not currently subject to federal resolution authority.  Interest in these proposals stems from the credit crisis, particularly the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.

That bankruptcy, according to some observers, caused massive destabilization in credit markets for two reasons.  First, market participants were surprised that the government would permit a massive market player to undergo a costly Chapter 11 proceeding. Very different policy had been applied to other systemically important institutions such as Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.  Second, the bankruptcy filing triggered fire sales of Lehman assets. Fire sales were harmful to other, non-distressed institutions that held similar assets, which suddenly plummeted in value. They were also harmful to any institution holding Lehman’s commercial paper, which functioned as a store of value for entities such as the Primary Reserve Fund. Fire sales destroyed Lehman’s ability to honor these claims.

Lehman’s experience and the various bailouts of AIG, Bear Stearns, and other distressed institutions have produced two kinds of policy proposals. One calls for wholesale reform, including creation of a systemic risk regulator with authority to seize and stabilize systemically important institutions.  Another is more modest and calls for targeted amendments to the Bankruptcy Code and greater government monitoring of market risks.  This approach would retain bankruptcy as the principal mechanism for resolving distress at non-bank institutions, systemically important or not.

Put differently, current debates hinge on one question: Is the Bankruptcy Code an adequate mechanism for resolving the distress of systemically important institutions? One view says “no,” and advances wholesale reform. Another view says “yes, with some adjustments.”

Morrison’s paper sets out to assess this debate, and concludes by advocating [again, in his words] ”an approach modeled on the current regime governing commercial banks. That regime includes both close monitoring when a bank is healthy and aggressive intervention when it is distressed. The two tasks – monitoring and intervention – are closely tied, ensuring that intervention occurs only when there is a well-established need for it.” As a result of the close relationship between the power to intervene and the duty to monitor, however, any proposed legislation “is unwise if it gives the government power to seize an institution regardless of whether it was previously subject to monitoring and other regulations.”

Elsewhere in the Empire State, at the University of Rochester, Distinguished Professor Thomas H. Jackson proposes “Chapter 11F: A Proposal for the Use of Bankruptcy to Resolve (Restructure, Sell, or Liquidate) Financial Institutions.“  According to Jackson:

Bankruptcy reorganization is, for the most part, an American success story. It taps into a huge body of law, provides certainty, and has shown an ability to respond to changing circumstances. It follows (for the most part) nonbankruptcy priority rules – the absolute priority rule – with useful predictability, sorts out financial failure (too much debt but a viable business) from underlying failure, and shifts ownership to a new group of residual claimants, through the certainty that can be provided by decades of rules and case law.

Notwithstanding its success, bankruptcy reorganization has a patchwork of exceptions, some perhaps more sensible than others.  Among them are depository banks (handled by the FDIC), insurance companies (handled by state insurance regulators), and stockbrokers and commodity brokers (relegated to Chapter 7 and to federal regulatory agencies).  In recent months, there has been a growing chorus to remove bankruptcy law, and specifically its reorganization process, from “systemically important financial in-stitutions (SIFIs),” with a proposed regulatory process substituted instead, run by a designated federal agency, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Putting aside political considerations, behind this idea lie several perceived objections to the use of the bankruptcy process.  First, it is argued, bankruptcy, because it is focused on the parties before the court, is not able to deal with the impacts of a bankruptcy on other institutions – an issue thought to be of dominant importance with respect to SIFIs, where the concern is that the fall of one will bring down others or lead to enormous problems in the nation’s financial system.  Second, bankruptcy – indeed, any judicial process – is thought to be too slow to deal effectively with failures that require virtually instant attention so as to minimize their consequences.  Third – and probably related to the first and second objections – even the best-intentioned bankruptcy process is assumed to lack sufficient expertise to deal with the complexities of a SIFI and its intersection with the broader financial market.

Jackson’s response to this growing chorus of objections is to propose amending existing Chapter 11 legislation.  Again, in his words:

The premise of [Jackson's] “Chapter 11F” proposal, which [he] flesh[es] out [in his paper], is that, assuming the validity of each of these objections, they, neither individually nor collectively, make a case for creating yet another (and very large) exception to the nation’s bankruptcy laws and setting up a regulatory system, run by a designated federal agency, that operates outside of the predictability-enhancing constraints of a judicial process. Rather, bankruptcy’s process can be modified for SIFIs – [Jackson's] Chapter 11F – to introduce, and protect, systemic concerns, to provide expertise, and to provide speed where it might, in fact, be essential. Along the way, there is probably a parallel need to modify certain other existing bankruptcy exclusions, such as for insurance companies, commodity brokers, stockbrokers, and even depository banks, so that complex, multi-faceted financial institutions can be fully resolved within bankruptcy.

With views as divergent as these, one might be tempted to look for a fundamental assessment of the differences between the banking regulatory system and the Chapter 11 process.  And that assessment is, in fact, available from the Congressional Research Service – which last April provided its own comparison of “Insolvency of Systemically Significant Financial Companies: Bankruptcy v. Conservatorship / Receivership.“  As summarized by its author, Legislative Attorney David H. Carpenter:

One clear lesson of the 2008 recession, which brought Goliaths such as Bear Sterns, CitiGroup, AIG, and Washington Mutual to their knees, is that no financial institution, regardless of its size, complexity, or diversification, is invincible. Congress, as a result, is left with the question of how best to handle the failure of systemically significant financial companies (SSFCs). In the United States, the insolvencies of depository institutions (i.e., banks and thrifts with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)) are not handled according to the procedures of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Instead, they and their subsidiaries are subject to a separate regime prescribed in federal law, called a conservatorship or receivership. Under this regime, the conservator or receiver, which generally is the FDIC, is provided substantial authority to deal with virtually every aspect of the insolvency. However, the failure of most other financial institutions within bank, thrift, and financial holding company umbrellas (including the holding companies themselves) generally are dealt with under the Bankruptcy Code.

In March of 2009, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner proposed legislation that would impose a conservatorship/receivership regime, much like that for depository institutions, on insolvent financial institutions that are deemed systemically significant. In order to make a policy assessment concerning the appropriateness of this proposal, it is important to understand both the similarities and differences between insured depositories and other financial institutions large enough or interconnected enough to pose systemic risk to the U.S. economy upon failure, as well as the differences between the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the FDIC’s conservatorship/receivership authority.

[Carpenter's] report first discusses the purposes behind the creation of a separate insolvency regime for depository institutions. The report then compares and contrasts the characteristics of depository institutions with SSFCs. Next, the report provides a brief analysis of some important differences between the FDIC’s conservatorship / receivership authority and that of the Bankruptcy Code. The specific differences discussed are: (1) overall objectives of each regime; (2) insolvency initiation authority and timing; (3) oversight structure and appeal; (4) management, shareholder, and creditor rights; (5) FDIC “superpowers,” including contract repudiation versus Bankruptcy’s automatic stay; and (6) speed of resolution. This report makes no value judgment as to whether an insolvency regime for SSFCs that is modeled after the FDIC’s conservatorship/receivership authority is more appropriate than using (or adapting) the Bankruptcy Code. Rather, it simply points out the similarities and differences between SSFCs and depository institutions, and compares the conservatorship/receivership insolvency regime with the Bankruptcy Code to help the reader develop his/her own opinion.

Fascinating reading . . . and an awful lot of it.

From New York’s Southern District comes the strange tale of the Canadian asset backed commercial paper market, and a decision that raises the question of whether foreign courts provide a possible strategic “end run” around US law for parties doing business in the US – and even for US litigants with a business presence overseas.

Collapse of the Canadian Asset Backed Commercial Paper Market

Asset backed commercial paper (ABCP) is a Canadian short-term investment with a low interest yield.  Generally marketed as a “safe” investment, ABCP is considered “asset backed” because the cash used to purchase these notes goes to create a portfolio of financial or other assets, which are then security for repayment of the originally issued paper.  In flush times, ABCPs were typically paid off with the proceeds from the purchase of new paper – or simply rolled over into new paper purchases themselves.

But times did not stay flush.

By 2007, ABCPs were collateralized by everything from auto loans to residential mortgages – which, unlike the “short-term” paper they backed, had much longer maturities.  With the rapidly-cresting economic downturn, uncertainty began to ripple through the ABCP market by mid-2007.  Because ABCPs were not transparent investments and investors could not determine which assets backed their paper, the uncertainty soon grew into a full-scale liquidity crisis.

The Big Freeze – And The Planned Thaw

In August 2007, approximately CAN$32 billion of non-bank sponsored ABCP in the Canadian market was frozen after an agreement between the major market participants.  This “freeze” was implemented pending an attempt to resolve the crisis through a restructuring of the market.  A “Pan-Canadian Investors Committee” was created, which introduced a creditor-initiated Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the Canadian Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).  The Plan was sanctioned in June 2008 in the Metcalfe cases.  Essentially, the Plan converted the noteholders’ frozen paper into new, long-term notes with a discounted face value that could be traded freely, in the hope that a strong secondary market for the notes would emerge in the long run.

Releases for Third Parties

Part of the Plan required that market participants, including banks, dealers, noteholders, asset providers, issuer trustees, and liquidity providers be released from any liability related to ABCP, with the exception of certain narrow fraud claims.  Among those receiving these releases were Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, HSBC Bank USA, Merrill Lynch International, UBS, and Wachovia Bank and their respective affiliates.

These third party releases were themselves the subject of appellate litigation in Canada, but were eventually upheld as within the ambit of the CCAA.  The Plan became effective in January 2009, and the court-appointed monitors (Ernst & Young, Inc.) sought US recognition of the Metcalfe cases in New York the following October.  More specifically, the monitors sought enforcement in the US of the third-party releases which were a centerpiece of the Canadian Plan.

Third-party releases of non-bankrupt parties are significantly limited under US bankruptcy law – and, in a number of circuits, prohibited altogether.  In the 2d Circuit – where the recognition cases are pending – they are permissible only where (i) “truly unusual circumstances render the release terms important to the success of the plan;” and (ii) the released claims “directly affect the res (i.e., the property) of the bankruptcy estate.”  In Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn’s view, the Canadian releases went a bit further than what the 2d Circuit would otherwise permit.  Nevertheless, Ernst & Young asked Judge Glenn to permit them.

Recognition and Enforcement In the US

Ernst & Young’s request was based, first, on Section 1509, which requires that if a US Bankruptcy Court grants recognition in a foreign main proceeding, it “shall grant comity or cooperation to the foreign representative.”  Moreover, where recognition is granted, the US court “may provide additional assistance to [the] foreign representative” (Section 1507(a)), provided that such assistance is “consistent with the principles of comity” and serves one or more articulated policy goals set forth in Section 1507(b).  The decision to provide such assistance “is largely discretionary and turns on subjective factors that embody principles of comity.”  It is also subject to a general but narrowly construed ”public policy” restriction in Section 1506.

Comity

Though it is given prominence in Chapter 15, the American concept of “comity” in fact grows out of many decades of US commercial experience: Over a century ago, the emerging freedom of markets, comparatively few limits on imports, exports, immigration and exchanges of information and capital flows gave rise to what has been termed as the “first age of globalization.” In keeping with the spirit of that age, US courts of the period sought to resolve commercial disputes involving international litigants in a manner that would facilitate free international trade. They did so by preserving, where possible, the sanctity of rulings rendered in foreign tribunals as those rulings pertained to US citizens involved in foreign transactions. Those efforts found their expression through application of the case law doctrine of “comity.”

As expressed long ago by the US Supreme Court, “comity” is that “recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation.” As described by more modern precedent, US courts will recognize the “[a]cts of foreign governments purporting to have extraterritorial effect” when those acts are consistent with US law and policy.

It is worth noting that “consistent with US law and policy” does not mean identical with US law and policy.  As Judge Glenn observed, “[t]he relief granted in the foreign proceeding and the relief available in a [US] proceeding need not be identical.”  Instead, the “key determination” is “whether the procedures used in [the foreign court] meet [US] fundamental standards of fairness.”

“Fundamental standards of fairness” are understandably vague, and – beyond the basic idea of due process – often difficult to establish.  In this case, Judge Glenn essentially found that though the releases in question likely went beyond what would pass muster under US law, third party releases weren’t completely unheard of – and besides, the decision of a Canadian court of competent jurisdiction should be entitled to recognition as a matter of comity in any event.

What It All Means

The Metcalfe decision is interesting.  One one hand, it seems to provide merely another example of the well-recognized fact that Canadian judgments are routinely upheld by US courts.  However, it also suggests that parties with access to foreign tribunals with insolvency schemes resembling the US, but providing relief somewhat different from (i.e., more favorable to) that available under US insolvency law, may be able to maneuver around US law by filing a “main [insolvency] case” in a foreign jurisdiction, then seeking recognition and enforcement of that relief in the US – on the basis of comity.

Something to think about.

When a foreign business entity commences a bankruptcy proceeding, US courts’ recognition of that proceeding depends on whether or not it is a “foreign main proceeding” under the meaning of US Bankruptcy Code.  Whether or not a foreign bankruptcy is a recognized “foreign main proceeding” depends on the location of the debtor’s “center of main interests” (or “COMI”).

The concept of a debtor’s “COMI” has become a critical one – not only in the US, but in a number of foreign jurisdictions including the UK.  Because the same legal concept arises in multiple jurisdictions, the manner in which the “COMI” concept is applied across international boundaries carries with it the potential for the same sort of duplication, jurisdictional confusion, and mischief that led to the development and implementation of UNCITRAL’s model cross-border insolvency law in the first place.  Consequently, getting COMI right – and getting it consistent across jurisdictional borders – has become a matter of international concern.

The importance of COMI has come to light most recently in the Stanford matter (see prior posts here), where multiple courts have been asked to determine COMI for Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (SIB).  In Texas, Judge David Godbey has taken extensive briefing from the parties in advance of a decision on recognition.  In London, Mr. Justice Lewison’s original decision finding SIB’s COMI to be Antigua – rendered last July – saw approximately 5 days of appellate argument at the end of last year.  The parties presently await a decision from the English Court of Appeal.

The Stanford matter highlights a fundamental question about COMI:  Should it be a flexible concept, susceptible to broad judicial discretion?  Or should COMI be based purely on objective factors, precisely and mechanically applied?

Mr. Justice Lewison’s prior decision in London (summarized and avaialable here) took an essentially mechanistic approach to determining COMI, focusing primarily – as the UK Regulation requires – on what creditors objectively perceived about the debtor.  US law – which, like England’s, is based on the UNCITRAL model – likewise places similar emphasis on creditors’ perceptions in dealing with the debtor.

But did legislators in the UK or the US intend that the analysis should stop with what creditors knew or likely would have known about the debtor?

After all, Stanford’s operation was a sham.  And where creditors’ perceptions of SIB were based on a sham, is it appropriate to perpetuate the sham in determining COMI?

While the English Court of Appeal deliberates Lewison J’s decision, Judge Godbey appears headed in a slightly different analytical direction.  Specifically, the questions on which he’s requested briefing in the Texas proceeding appear to focus more specifically on the similarity of COMI to a debtor’s “principal place of business” as that concept is recognized under US law.  Though not inconsistent with what creditors would have perceived about the debtor, it tends to focus more broadly on factors which, though objective, are not tied as closely to what the debtor held out to specific parties.  Instead, the debtor’s “principal place of business” views the totality of the debtor’s operations – whether or not such operations were completely visible to creditors or other third parties – and, on the basis of these specific facts, determines the debtor’s principal place of business.

Whether a possible change in COMI analysis means a change in SIB’s COMI remains to be seen.