International Insolvency

Recent cases have evidenced one form of jurisdictional migration and two forms of venue migration. As to the jurisdictional migration, international companies with virtually no U.S. connection seek to, and generally succeed at, establishing a sufficient U.S. presence to file a Chapter 11 in the United States because, if there are reorganization proceedings in the countries that are their COMIs, they are perceived as inadequate (Marco Polo, Omega, GenMar). What has worked for non-U.S. companies seeking to invoke U.S. Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction, and what is the legal authority? Venue migration is nothing new--debtors file in their place of incorporation rather than the venue in which their headquarters or primary operations are. What are the factors that go into that decision? Finally, sometimes debtors are forced to migrate back. What factors have resulted in a change of venue? (Houghton Mifflin and Patriot Coal).

Legal and cultural investor considerations in specific European jurisdictions (e.g., U.K., Germany and Spain); how the option of U.S. chapter 11 influences investor outcomes; update on the status of bankruptcy reforms in European jurisdictions; multi-jurisdictional issues within European restructurings; how the distressed market functions and impacts restructurings (liquidity, transparency, etc.)

How does a U.S. court deal with allegations that a foreign proceeding or judicial system is flawed or corrupt?; dealing with “corporate groups”; the continuing saga of Nortel, Vitro and Elpida; cooperation and enforcement of judgments

A Comity of Errors: International Electronic Communications and Cyber-fraud in Transnational Bankruptcy Cases

This panel of leading bankruptcy lawyers, sponsored by Lexis® Practice Advisor, will feature a discussion of new provisions and practices for debtors, lenders, creditors and buyers in DIP Financings, 363 Sales, and Chapter 15s.

BK 360 Revisited: ABI Past-Presidents Panel

The core of restructuring in the United States is the value of the entity at various points in time. The valuation of the post-restructured business plan is one of the most contentious yet essential components of restructuring. In the U.S. valuation takes on a strategic and tactical significance. It impacts the form of restructure, sale v. reorganization, and going concern v. liquidation. This panel contrasts approaches used by other jurisdictions around the world.

Albert Gallatin was the longest-serving U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (1801-1814) and came into office as a professed anti-Federalist, ardent proponent of fiscal responsibility, and vocal opponent of Alexander Hamilton’s financial policies. However, Gallatin failed to accomplish the Jeffersonian objectives of shrinking the national debt and eliminating taxes, as he was forced to finance a war with Great Britain and the purchase of the Louisiana territory. Gallatin also supported the First Bank of the United States and proposed federally financed infrastructure projects. Consolidation, it seems, is complicated. A discussion of the early history of sovereign debt in the U.S., in particular the roll-up of the obligations of the colonies into the newly constituted federal government, the role of the First Bank of the United States, and the political challenges of managing the debt. Sovereign debt sustainability and valuation in the modern era, focusing on governments’ ability and willingness to pay, the role of central banks, and a potential resolution to the euro area crisis, will be addressed.

The panel will explore many of the major differences between U.S. chapter 11 and the Concurso Mercantil and discuss such topics as bondholder recognition, classification of claims, creditor voting and confirmation of a reorganization plan, financing issues and sale of assets.