Supreme Court to Decide Extent of Puerto Rico’s Sovereign Powers

Posted on

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the appeal styled under the caption Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, No. 15-108. In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause contained in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Puerto Rico wants to be able to prosecute crimes in its courts even though the federal government had already prosecuted respondents for those same crimes. In order to do that, Puerto Rico and the United States must be treated as separate “sovereigns.”

On December 23, 2015, the United States Solicitor General filed an amicus brief on behalf of the United States taking the position that Puerto Rico and the United States are not separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The United States asserts that U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico, are not sovereigns.[1] This position is contrary to the position taken by Puerto Rico. Instead, the United States asserts that territories are under the sovereignty of the United States and subject to the plenary authority of Congress. (Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents (“U.S. Amicus Brief”) filed in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, No. 15-108, at 7.) The United States argued that “In the Territories of the United States, Congress has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, Federal and state, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which the legislature of a State might legislate within the State.” (Id. at 16.) The United States further argued that “Puerto Rico’s transition to self-government did not change its constitutional status as a U.S. territory. The United States did not cede its sovereignty over Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico did not become a State or an independent nation.” (Id. at 21). As stated previously, Puerto Rico takes the position that it is a separate sovereign and, as such, it is able to separately prosecute crimes in its courts even if the federal government has already prosecuted for the same crimes.

Sanchez Valle will be the first of two appeals to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this term involving Puerto Rico. As we had previously reported, by order dated December 4, 2015, the Supreme Court also agreed to consider the appeals by the Commonwealth and the Government Development Bank regarding the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s Debt Enforcement & Recovery Act (DERA) in the appeals styled under the caption Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 15-233, and Acosta-Febo v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 15-255 (the “Franklin Fund Appeals”).

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez Valle could have an impact on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the constitutionality of the DERA. In filing its amicus brief, the United States asserted that “The Court’s decision [in Sanchez Valle] . . . may affect the federal government’s defense of federal legislation and policies related to Puerto Rico across a broad range of substantive areas, including congressional representation, federal benefits, federal income taxes, bankruptcy, and defense.” (Id. at 1). The hearing on the Franklin Fund Appeals has not yet been scheduled, but briefs by the parties will be filed in the coming weeks.

READ MORE →

Oil & Gas Bankruptcy Issues: Part 2 Typical Deal Structures and Financings

Posted on

Part 2 Typical Deal Structures and Financings

In this second of five videos on the oil & gas industry, Orrick Restructuring Chair Ron D’Aversa and Restructuring Partner Doug Mintz discuss oil & gas deal structures and oil & gas financings.

If you wish to skip ahead, select one of the below topics:

What are the typical kinds of deals operators employ?

What is the typical deal structure for a reserve-based loan (RBL)?

How does the borrowing base work?

What is the process for redetermining borrowing bases?

What role do hedges play in the borrowing base redeterminations?

What is your view on how the spring redetermination process effected companies and what should we expect for the fall?

What happens if there is a major spike or decrease in price in the middle of the redetermination process?

For additional posts in this series, please click here: Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

Oil & Gas Bankruptcy Issues: Part 1 Current Industry Situation and Background

Posted on

Part 1: Current Industry Situation and Background

In this first of five videos on the oil & gas industry, Orrick Restructuring Chair Ron D’Aversa and Restructuring Partner Doug Mintz discuss changes the industry has seen in recent months and how these changes are affecting oil & gas companies.

If you wish to skip ahead, select one of the below topics:

What can oil & gas companies do to deal with these issues?

How are the capital markets responding to this situation?

How are these new deals going for lenders and investors?

What should lenders and investors be focused on right now?

For additional posts in this series, please click here: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

Seventh Circuit Holds Section 105(a) Permits Stay of Litigation Against Non-Debtor Affiliates

Posted on

Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court “may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).  In the Caesars bankruptcy, the Seventh Circuit explored the breadth of a court’s rights to take action under this section.  The Seventh Circuit held that section 105(a) permits the Bankruptcy Court to issue an injunction with respect to litigation pending against the debtors’ non-debtor parent.  The Court of Appeals did not ultimately determine whether the stay should in fact be granted because “that’s an issue for the bankruptcy judge to resolve in the first instance;” rather, it held that the Bankruptcy Court and District Court had erred in interpreting section 105(a) too narrowly in denying the stay sought by the debtors. In re Caesars Entm’t Operating Co., Inc., No. 15-3259, 2015 WL 9311432 (7th Cir. Dec. 23, 2015).

READ MORE →

Solus v. Perry: Case Update

, and Posted on

Since May, we’ve followed Solus v. Perry, a New York County Supreme Court case originally filed in July of 2012. The case centered around whether Perry entered into a binding oral agreement to sell Solus a participation interest in a $1.6 billion claim against Bernie Madoff’s bankruptcy estate. The parties agreed on a price and some other material terms during a phone call in April of 2012 but never signed a written agreement. In its pleadings, Perry claimed that because its trader noted that the trade was “subject to documentation,” no agreement was ever formed.

Last Monday, the parties filed a stipulation discontinuing the case with prejudice.

During oral arguments on the parties’ summary judgment motions last year, Judge Saliann Scarpulla noted that several issues with meaningful implications for the distressed trading market would need to be resolved before summary judgment could be entered, including: (1) whether there is an industry custom regarding the binding nature of oral contracts for unsecured claim trades; (2) whether an agreement that a trade is subject to documentation means there is no binding contract; and (3) whether the need for consent of a third party means there is no binding contract if such consent is not obtained.

The Solus v. Perry case will not produce an opinion resolving these issues. However, market participants should take note that even in New York, these issues are still considered open questions. Therefore, we reiterate the conclusions from our May article:

  • When possible, get a trade confirmation signed immediately after entering into an oral trade.
  • If an executed trade confirmation is not forthcoming, confirm that your counterparty is familiar with the LSTA standard terms or other relevant industry customs and intends to work within those guidelines.
  • Be proactive any time a counterparty delivers a communication during or after trade time that could be interpreted as evidence that a binding agreement does not already exist.
  • Exercise special care when dealing with counterparties and people with whom you do not typically trade.

Update on Puerto Rico

Posted on

Supreme Court to Determine Constitutionality of DERA

By order dated December 4, 2015, the US Supreme Court has agreed to consider the appeal by the Commonwealth and the Government Development Bank regarding the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s Debt Enforcement & Recovery Act (DERA). In requesting the Supreme Court to consider its appeal, the Commonwealth stated that this case “presents a question of extraordinary importance and urgency and that the lack of a bankruptcy framework is hindering negotiations to reach a restructuring agreement.

For additional Puerto Rico updates, including information on the proposed Supervisory Oversight Board, continue below.

READ MORE →

Foreign Debtors’ Access to U.S. Bankruptcy Courts: Expansion of “Property in the United States” Definition in Chapter 15 Cases

Posted on

When is a foreign entity eligible to file a chapter 15 petition?  This question has been the subject of debate over the last few years, and Judge Martin Glenn’s recent opinion in In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd. will add to this debate.  Although the debtor in the case was foreign and did not have a place of business in the United States, Judge Glenn concluded that the debtor had satisfied the eligibility provisions under section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code because the New York choice of law and forum selection clause in the underlying bond indenture rendered the bonds “property in the United States.”  No. 15-11804 (MG), 2015 WL 6507871 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2015).

READ MORE →

Privacy Policies and the Sale of Corporate Assets: It pays to plan ahead to preserve the value of your data assets

, , and Posted on

Personal data is a valuable corporate asset.  At times, the personal information collected from customers (such as email address, mailing address, phone number, etc.) can be a company’s most valuable asset.  Unfortunately, when a company attempts to sell this asset, it can find the value of the data significantly diminished due to promises made in a privacy policy the company implemented years before it ever contemplated such a sale.

A company’s privacy policy sets forth the company’s promises to its consumers as to how it will collect, store, maintain, and share the consumers’ personal data.  In an attempt to appeal to customer privacy concerns, it is common for a company to proclaim in such policies:

“We share your personal data only in the ways described in this policy,”

or

“We care about our customers and we will never sell or share your personal data.”

Most companies include these statements to highlight their promise not to capitalize on a consumer’s data by selling to third party marketers.  However, many companies do not realize that statements such as these could also severely restrict the company’s ability to sell data as a corporate asset in a company sale, merger, bankruptcy, or similar corporate transaction, unless there is also a clear statement within the policy which permits data to be transferred during the course of such events.

There are steps a company can take leading up to the corporate transaction to smooth the transfer of customer data, such as updating its privacy policy, providing additional notice to consumers, requesting opt-out or opt-in consent to the revised policy and/or the data sale.  Companies that fail to take these steps and attempt to transfer data in a manner that conflicts with promises made in its privacy policy may face regulatory scrutiny or litigation, both of which would ultimately diminish the value of their data assets in any eventual sale.

READ MORE →

New York Court Rules (Sort of) on Whether Electricity is a Good or a Service

Posted on

It seems only fitting that recent decisions by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and its bankruptcy court regarding the nature of electricity should have sent, at least initially, a jolt through the energy community.  Perhaps the Southern District court would lead the charge for one side or the other in an ongoing debate over whether electricity constitutes goods or services—a controversy that has potentially far-reaching implications (in bankruptcy cases, concerning the priority of claims of electricity providers, and, in ordinary transactions, for the tort liability of  electricity providers). In the end, however, the outcome of the litigation was something less than electrifying.  Here’s what happened.

READ MORE →

Orrick Launches Report on Restructuring European High Yield Bonds

Posted on

Over the past few years the European high yield bond market has been on a roll. Issuance has increased, yields have come down and the default rate has been close to zero. Institutional demand for European high yield bonds has been exceptional. Yet a near zero default rate is an historic anomaly which cannot go on forever. What happens when liquidity dries up and issuers default? How should issuers protect themselves and manage creditors threatening to enforce security? What are the key issues for stakeholders to implement a high yield restructuring? How can conflicts of law be managed where the bond is New York law governed, the intercreditor agreement is English law and the guarantors and assets are spread throughout Europe? Drawing on our European and US restructuring experience we address these issues in our report on Restructuring European High Yield Bonds.

If you would like to receive a printed copy of this report, please let us know.