Michael B. Schaedle and Jose F. Bibiloni
In complex long-term charters for vessels or finance leases in respect of vessels under the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) and its Article 2A (governing commercial matters relating to finance leases) and under other similar law, a charterer’s or lessor’s damages under a charter or lease—both generally upon a payment default or in the event of a casualty—are often liquidated in stipulated loss value (“SLV”) provisions. These provisions ensure that the lessor/charterer gets the benefit of its bargain. It insulates the lessor/charterer, in part, from unusual market downturns impacting vessel value or casualties.
A typical SLV calculation enables the present value recovery of the charterer’s/lessor’s unrecovered investment, residual value in the vessel, and the recapture of tax benefits and certain fees and costs, less a credit for the value of the vessel, if the stipulated loss value is repaid by the charter party/lessee, a net proceeds measure.1 Schedules to identify the stipulated loss are a common feature of such charters and leases.2 Now, any SLV provision under Article 2A of the U.S. U.C.C., for example, must be reasonable as of lease/charter commencement.3 Oftentimes, these kinds of charters and leases are backed by absolute, unconditional guaranties of such loss value from affiliates of the charter parties.4 Continue reading “Vessel Charters and the Stipulated Loss Value Clauses in U.S. Chapter 11 Reorganization”
Rick Antonoff and Evan J. Zucker
The Insolvency Working Group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”)1 has been busy this past year, working on three new model laws and developing work on at least two possible future projects.2 The Insolvency Working Group is responsible for drafting the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the “CBI Model Law”) in 1997, which has since been adopted in 46 countries and is under consideration in several others. In 2005, the United States adopted the CBI Model Law as Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
In May 2018, the Insolvency Working Group completed its work on a Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (the “IRJ Model Law”). The Insolvency Working Group determined that there was a need for the IRJ Model Law after judicial decisions in certain countries declined to recognize judgments related to foreign insolvency proceedings. In addition, the Insolvency Working Group noted that many international treaties addressing foreign judgments exclude insolvency-related judgments, and countries that do recognize foreign insolvency-related judgments have inconsistent rules about when a judgment is related to an insolvency proceeding. (For more information, please read our article published in INSOL International’s Special Report (March 2019), UNCITRAL’s Model law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments—A Universalist Approach to Cross-Border Insolvency.) Continue reading “Update on UNCITRAL Insolvency Working Group”
Rick Antonoff and Evan Jason Zucker
An increasingly global economy and the ease with which money and other property is transferred across national borders has led to more cross-border litigation and a call for greater cooperation and communication between foreign courts. But the ability for courts to communicate across borders has its limits. Recently, in In re Zetta Jet USA, Inc.,1 a chapter 7 trustee asked a U.S. bankruptcy court to authorize sending a letter from the U.S. court to an Australian court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1781, asking the Australian court to continue an injunction against moving a vessel located in Australia pending the resolution of an avoidance action in the United States against the vessel’s purported owner. The U.S. court refused to issue such a letter after concluding that a letter from a U.S. court requesting the Australian court to continue an injunction would be an unwarranted interference by the U.S. court in the Australian proceeding, and would offend principles of international comity by suggesting how the Australian court should rule on the injunction as well as preempting the Australian court’s consideration of whether to vacate the injunction.2
Zetta Jet USA, Inc. (“Zetta US”) and Zetta Jet PTE (“Zetta Singapore,” and together with Zetta US, collectively, the “Zetta Entities”) operated an international luxury travel business that fell into financial distress largely due to allegedly fraudulent activity of its principal, Geoffrey Owen Cassidy. On September 15, 2017, Zetta US and Zetta Singapore each filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the “U.S. Bankruptcy Court”). The cases were subsequently converted to chapter 7 cases and Jonathan King (the “Trustee”) was appointed the chapter 7 trustee. Continue reading “Court-to-Court Communication and Letters of Request in Cross-Border Litigation and Asset Tracing”
Michael B. Schaedle and Gregory F. Vizza
A proactive creditor often ends up in a better legal position, and has more negotiating power, than a reactive one. While that may seem obvious, it is a lesson driven home by a 2017 decision in the SunEdison bankruptcy case, which involves issues of international comity, choice of law provisions, and ultimately, the tactics employed by a Korean debtor in connection with its contractual relationship with SunEdison. In SMP Ltd. v. SunEdison, Inc. and GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, 577 B.R. 120 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017), the SunEdison bankruptcy court refused to apply Korean insolvency law in a contract termination dispute, and enforced a contractual New York choice-of-law provision. Notwithstanding the chapter 15 recognition of the Korean debtor’s rehabilitation, applying New York law, the court upheld the enforcement of an ipso facto (“by the fact itself”) clause against the Korean debtor, thereby allowing termination of a license with SunEdison that was essential to the debtor’s business. Continue reading “Enforcing Ipso Facto Clauses in International Transactions and the Importance of Being Proactive in Dealings with Troubled and Insolvent Entities”
Michael B. Schaedle and Rick Antonoff
A Fight over the Effect of Consolidation
According to the Manhattan Bankruptcy Court’s thoughtful and well-written December 4, 2017, decision in In re Oi Brasil Cooperatief U.A., a bondholder, Aurelius Capital Management (“Aurelius”) forced the straight Dutch liquidation of Oi Brasil Cooperatief (“Coop”) in order to revoke the prior recognition as a foreign main proceeding in the Manhattan Bankruptcy Court of a broader Brazilian reorganization of Coop and its operating affiliates, the Oi Group, a Brazilian telecommunications consortium. In that Brazilian reorganization, Coop was to be consolidated substantively with other Oi Group members. This consolidating effect, according to the court, would limit Aurelius recoveries to a single pathway in a unitary capital structure and prevent additive recoveries for the holder on bond guaranties.
Aurelius Criticized for Insisting on Dutch Recognition in Order to Preserve Guaranties
Specifically, the court found that Aurelius was an active participant in the hearing on the Oi Group’s Brazilian proceeding’s recognition in June and July of 2016, negotiating rights reservations to act in the Netherlands in its own interest, but never challenging the propriety of Brazil as the Oi Group’s (and Coop’s) “center of main interest” or “COMI.” At the same time, the court ruled that even as Aurelius participated in the first-filed New York Oi Group chapter 15, it intended to challenge the Brazilian recognition of Coop by seeking to liquidate Coop in the Netherlands through a Dutch trustee. According to the court, these Dutch-centered tactics were in aid of an Aurelius strategy to achieve higher recoveries at the Coop level of the Oi Group restructuring in the Netherlands outside of the Brazilian reorganization (where ratable recoveries for Aurelius would be lower after consolidation), while intercompany claims for the benefit of Coop and in aid of this Netherlands-centered strategy were pursued by a Dutch trustee in a Dutch home court. Continue reading “Oi Brasil and Competing Foreign Main Proceedings: Creditors Can’t “Weaponize” Chapter 15″
Mainbrace | March 2018 (No.1)
Rick Antonoff, Michael B. Schaedle, Bryan J. Hall, and Matthew E. Kaslow
In a pair of recent opinions from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, two judges took varying approaches to the issues of 1) their ability to assert personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, and 2) application of U.S. laws to transactions that occur, at least in part, outside of the United States.
The first opinion, from Judge Sean H. Lane, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to avoid and recover money initially transferred to correspondent bank accounts in New York designated by the defendants, before being further transferred outside of the United States to complete transactions under investment agreement executed outside of the United States and governed by foreign law. On remand after a district judge ruled that the defendants’ use of correspondent banks in the United States was sufficient for the bankruptcy court to have personal jurisdiction over them, Judge Lane held that the doctrine of international comity and the presumption against extraterritoriality did not prevent application of U.S. law to avoid transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The second opinion, from Judge James L. Garrity, Jr., dismissed a bankruptcy trustee’s claims to avoid and recover transfers under U.S. bankruptcy law that occurred entirely outside the territory of the United States. Continue reading “NY Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with Territorial Limits”
Mainbrace | March 2017 (No. 2)
Michael B. Schaedle and Bryan J. Hall
For the most part, the U.S. Bankruptcy Code formally and specifically deals with cross-border cases through chapter 15, a statute based on the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency promulgated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) in 1997.1 The purpose of chapter 15 is to enhance cooperation between U.S. and foreign courts in connection with cross-border insolvencies to promote greater legal certainty for trade and investment, fairness, value optimization of a debtor’s assets, and the protection of investment and employment.2 Chapter 15 serves these goals by providing a foreign debtor’s representative with access to U.S. courts to assist a foreign main or non-main proceeding, which has been raised cross-border in a jurisdiction that is either the center of the debtor’s main interests or in which the debtor has an important facility.
Continue reading “Concurrent Plenary Insolvency Proceedings: Additional Options for Cross-Border Reorganization and Liquidation”