Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawRegulationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Claims Trading Restrictions Dealt Setback

By Todd A. Feinsmith and John C. Elstad
December 22, 2006

In recent years, debtors in large corporate bankruptcies have sometimes sought and obtained, in varying degrees, authority at the outset of bankruptcy cases for severe restrictions on trading in claims against the debtors by substantial claimholders. These restrictions have included prohibitions against trading absent consent of the debtor, forced consent to a debtor-ordered 'sell down' of debt securities later in the case and deprivation of the right to participate meaningfully in plan formulation and negotiation (no matter how large one's holdings might be). The purported purpose of these restrictions has been to preserve the debtor's ability to deduct its past net operating losses (NOLs) from future revenues. In practice, however, these debt-trading orders have chilled the market for trading in debt securities and served to entrench existing management by effectively precluding substantial investors from acquiring meaningful positions in the debtor's debt securities.

Recently, in the Dana Corp. et al. case (Case No. 06-10354 Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), creditors fought back and won a substantial victory. The claims trading order entered in the Dana case dramatically limited the debtors' interference in claims trading. In the future, creditors should rely on the example set in the Dana case to resist any attempt to impose claims trading restrictions at the outset of bankruptcy cases.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.