Restructuring Conference Announcement

Announcement that slipsters might be interested in:

Financial Restructuring Roundtable

Call for Papers

The Financial Restructuring Roundtable (formerly the West Coast Bankruptcy Roundtable) will be held in person on April 6, 2023 in New York City. Spearheaded by Tony Casey, Samir Parikh, Robert Rasmussen, and Michael Simkovic, this invitation-only event brings together practitioners, jurists, scholars, and finance industry professionals to discuss important financial restructuring and business law issues. 

Private Equity Debt Shenanigans Conference

I'm obsessed with debt shenanigans and, in particular, the emergence of an entire industry (or so it seems) of lawyers who specialize in finding and exploiting contract loopholes in places where the parties to the transaction had no idea there were gaps.  And there are others who defend against this.  (Anyone remember J.Screwed or Windstream?). 

One area where the payouts of successful loophole detection and exploitation has shown big returns is the world of Private Equity. 

And now the Penn Law Review is hosting a conference on this topic. (Okay -- Their description of the topic is slightly different than mine).  Yay!

Call for papers is below:

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review will host its annual symposium on Friday, October 7, 2022, in-person. This year’s topic, “Debt Market Complexity: Shadowed Practices and Financial Injustice”, will explore the rise of increasingly complicated debt structures associated with private equity. We are issuing a call for papers for publication in the Law Review’s corresponding symposium issue.

To submit a paper for consideration, please provide an abstract no longer than 750 words to [email protected] by July 31st, 2022. If selected for publication, completed drafts will be due January 1st, 2023. 

The complete call for papers, which includes more detail, is available here. 

Yehuda Adar on Contract Damages -- In a Bond Default

Figuring out the right damages measure for default on an actively traded financial asset such as a government bond is, at first, obvious -- just pay what you promised on the bond.  But then, when one thinks about features of damages law such as the option to substitute performance or mitigation, things get murkier.

Yehuda Adar, a guru of the messy law of damages at Haifa, has a super new paper on ssrn.com (here).  How he manages to be so very clear and coherent about a topic that is so messy is beyond me. 

Here is the abstract:

What are the damages to which an investor facing a repudiation or a material breach by a government issuer is entitled? The conventional answer that most investors would probably give is that, in the face of such a default on the bond indenture, damages should include both the repayment of the principal (‘par’) and the payment of any remaining (i.e., unpaid) coupons (discounted to present value). Is this conventional understanding warranted? For at least some sovereign bond experts, the answer is not at all obvious and straightforward at it might seem at first blush. Aren’t such damages over-compensatory? Indeed, by obtaining – prior to maturity – both the par and every remaining coupon payment, isn’t the bondholder being put in a better position than if the contract had been performed? Indeed, if there had been no breach, wouldn’t the bondholder have to wait for those payments to be made until maturity date? Secondly, if damages are to be calculated this way, isn’t the bondholder going to receive something more valuable than what he had before the breach? More concretely, whereas prior to breach the bond’s market value reflected the issuer’s credit ranking, the conventional measure of damages seems to treat the bondholder as if he owned a U.S. treasury bond. Third, shouldn’t the investor be expected to purchase a substitute on either the primary or secondary market to eliminate or at least minimize his damages? Shouldn’t this option significantly reduce the scope of the issuer’s liability?

As basic as these questions sound, they have managed to escape rigorous analysis in the sovereign bonds literature. One can hardly find a comprehensive analysis of remedial issues within this vast body of scholarship. What, then, is the correct measure of damages for the breach of a government bond? By closely inspecting this deceptively simple question, this Article highlights the availability, under the general law of contract damages, of no less than four different methods for measuring a bondholder’s expectation damages. The Article presents to the reader each of these alternative measures and illustrates how to implement each of them in a hypothetical case described at the outset of the Article. Then, the Article addresses two analytical challenges facing a court (or an arbitrator) wishing to reach the correct decision on the damages issue. The first involves a choice between two ways of conceptualizing the bondholder’s loss; namely, the loss of the promised performance of the indenture on the one hand, and the market value of the bond on the other hand. The next challenge is that of applying the mitigation of damages doctrine. Considering the normative and practical considerations pertinent to each of these challenges, the Article ultimately concludes that in most cases courts will tend to implement the ‘Gross Lost Profit’ measure of damages, which is the most generous of the four expectation damage measures. Surprisingly or not (depending on one’s intuitions), this measure coincides with the wisdom of the crowd.

 

 

Co Authoring in Legal Academia

Co authoring saved me. Literally.  But for the fact that my senior colleagues at UCLA did not care whether I ever wrote anything sole authored, I don't think I would have written anything. I was (and am) just too racked with insecurities.  And then I'd probably have had to get a real job. Aiyiyiyi.  I owe an ever lasting debt to those colleagues -- thank you to Bill Klein, Devon Carbado, Steve Bainbridge, Rick Sander and more.

But I had heard, at the time (a long long time ago) that other schools were not so encouraging. Some of them, the rumor was, discounted co authored work or refused to count it at all in the tenure file.  The model of the worthy scholar was the solo romantic creator toiling away on the magnum opus in solitude.  

Things have changed since then though, as this brilliant piece, The Evolving Network of Legal Scholars,  by Andrew Hayashi shows (although, I have to ask Andrew: Why is the article on co authorship not co authored?).  Even putting aside the fact that I find the topic fascinating (of course, I'd like anything about co authorship), it is beautifully written and has the coolest graphs.  Every section says something new and insightful and one is left wanting more at the end. That is not how I feel at the end of most law journal articles -- actually, I don't even reach the end of most law journal articles because they are such torture to read (especially mine).

Abstract is here:

The law professoriate is a network connected by scholarly interactions of various kinds, including co-authorship. I study the evolution of the co-authorship network from 1980-2020 and document a sharp increase in the number of scholars, the amount of scholarship, and explosive growth in the network of legal scholars during this period. Despite this growth, however, the distance between legal scholars has shrunk such that legal academia can be characterized as a “small world.” I describe the increase in the number and scholarly contributions of women, minorities, and lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) scholars and the rise of co-authorship, including “mixed” co-authorship. I find that members of the same gender or minority groups tend to coauthor with each other, but that this correlation has declined over time resulting in more co-authorship across identity categories. Finally, examining the ordering of author names on coauthored articles, I find that racial minority scholars make up a greater share of first authors than their share of authors in general, while women and LGB scholars make up a smaller share of first authors than one might expect if authorship were randomly assigned.

Just a few questions for Andrew, for his next article on this topic:

1. The article focuses on co authorship in law journals. But what about peer review journals.  Might it be the case that the types of folks who migrate towards the co authorship model tend to publish more in peer review journals? Especially in fields like health law? Does that create an under count?

2. Do things change over the life cycle of a scholar?  Does co authoring at some stage lead to working on larger and larger teams over time? (as one sees the benefits - I'm thinking of Eric Posner's podcast  conversation with Orin Kerr about this topic (here))

3. Can you tell us more about the schools where co authorship thrives more than others?  Are they more collaborative? Do they produce better (more creative) or worse ideas?

4. What about co teaching?  Some schools encourage co teaching in the way they give credit.  Does that result in more co authorship?

Confiscating Russian Assets (Now?)

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues and the amount of destruction to lives and property grows exponentially, a question that has come up is whether Russian assets overseas should be confiscated and made available to those who the Russian invasion has harmed  (e.g., here).  The list of those is growing larger minute by minute:  refugees, families of those who have died, people whose homes and livelihoods have been blown apart and on and on and on.

The amount of harm that Mr. Putin's craziness has caused is already far greater than the value of the frozen assets -- in the many trillions whereas the frozen assets (even if one adds in the oligarch properties) is in the hundreds of billions.  But should we wait until Mr. Putin has taken whatever portion of Ukraine he wants (e.g., 20-30%), installed some puppet government, and is finally willing to negotiate for peace?  At that point, as part of the negotiation, he is going to want to ask for his frozen assets back.  And the leaders of the countries where the frozen assets are located, who will be desperate for peace, might be tempted to give the assets back.  Let us not kid ourselves.  The political flesh is weak.  If those politicians see themselves garnering advantage at the ballot box by negotiating a quick peace (to the detriment of the claims or refugees and others), they will do that.  So, maybe there is an argument to confiscating the assets now while there is political will to do so.

On the other hand, there is the small matter of the law.  Due process before taking people's property and all that.  Does it allow for the confiscation of the property of a sovereign engaging in an egregious violation of international law by invading a neighbor?  There is the proverbial slippery slope of countries confiscating the property of other sovereigns whose behavior has displeased them without first ensuring that they are legally entitled to.

To my mind, these are fascinating questions to which there are not clear answers.

Two giants of the legal academy, Larry Tribe and Paul Stephan have been debating this in the context of what Mr. Biden is allowed to do.  The assets can be frozen. But can they be confiscated?

Here is the abstract of Paul's superb new paper that describes the issues:

This article addresses the legal issues that the United States would confront were it to move from freezing to seizing. It looks first at the executive branch’s existing legal authority to confiscate foreign property. It considers legislative proposals to extend that authority. Both existing law and possible future legislation face constraints under constitutional law. These constraints are unique to the United States but reflect principles of legality and due process that western states generally embrace. Finally, it provides a snapshot of the international legal issues that seizure of Russian state assets might present.

First and foremost, existing law does not permit the executive branch to dispose of Russian state assets in advance of a settlement with that state. A civil process exists to forfeit assets to the state, including those of state-owned entities, but that entails resort to the courts and requires some evidence of criminality. Legislation currently under consideration in the United States would enhance that process but not abandon it. It would not apply to the largest portion of assets, the deposits of the Russian Central Bank in US financial institutions, absent some proof that those deposits can be traced to criminal activity. US constitutional guarantees against expropriation in the absence of compensation and of civil forfeiture in the absence of due process almost certainly apply.

Finally, the seizure of assets belonging to the Russian state outside of normal criminal and regulatory processes would violate international law. What international law probably would permit, however, is the use of these assets to satisfy legal judgments rendered against the Russian Federation by duly constituted international investment tribunals established under treaties to which Russia is a party. The United States and other countries in the West might explore ways of encouraging the beneficiaries of these awards, both present and future, to devote their recoveries to Ukrainian reconstruction.

A Tournament of Lawyers: Who Should Sri Lanka Hire to Manage its Debt Restructuring?

Rumor is that close to thirty leading international law firms have put in bids to assist Sri Lanka in its upcoming debt restructuring.  Makes sense -- there is a fat paycheck for whoever gets the mandate.  Given the stakes, my guess is that these firms -- and I'm just guessing -- are busy trying to "influence" whomsoever they can in both the current government and in the opposition (after all, the current government might fall any day now) to get ahead in the competition.  Yuck.

Having a good adviser can make a huge difference in terms of how well one's debt restructuring goes.  Hopefully, the decision will made as a function of which adviser will give Sri Lanka the best restructuring design and not made as a function of who is best buddies with the President's closest flunky.  I'm not optimistic though.

I have a suggestion.  I know it has zero chance, but I'm going to make it anyway.  We should have a competition, a tournament of lawyers. Each of these firms should have to put up on  ssrn.com a ten page plan as to how it plans to solve the likely holdout problem with Sri Lanka's restructuring.  Then, Sri Lanka could have a neutral panel of respected restructuring experts pick the firm with the best plan. Or the experts could pick four semi finalists and those semi finalists could be given the opportunity to present their plans and answer questions in an open setting. 

Wouldn't it be a lot better for these firms to be spending their resources competing to design the best possible plan for Sri Lanka than competing to please the president's best friend or the cousin of the leader of the opposition?

These foreign advisers are expensive. And perhaps rightly so, given what they provide.  But they should have to earn every penny they charge a country in deep distress.  Maybe some of them with a really good plan might even offer to work pro bono?  After all, fame and fortune can come alongside a beautifully conducted restructuring.

Let the games begin.

 

Can Russia Pay its 2022 Dollar Bond Obligation in Rubles? (More dodgy Russian bond clauses?)

I didn't think so. But one of my students has me questioning myself.

As of this writing, in April 2022, the press is reporting that Russia is on the brink of default because its foreign currency funds are frozen (here). Russia says that it is not in default because it is unable to make the dollar or euro payments as a result of the sanctions and is entitled to make its payments in rubles.  Investors have dismissed this idea – saying that it is “crystal clear” that payments on the bonds with payments due April 2022 have to be paid in foreign currency (here).

Yes, there are some bonds, containing an “Alternate Payments Currency” clause issued in the post-2014 period, where Russia is arguably entitled to make payments in rubles if, for reasons out of its control, it is unable to pay in the primary currency specified in the bond (here).  But the bonds that have come due in April 2022 do not contain that Alternate Payment Currency clause. And hence the assumption seems to be that the ruble payment constitutes a default.  And I confess that that was my assumption until a student, Doug Mulliken, pointed out a clause that I had previously missed.

It is clause number 15, titled “Currency Indemnity.”  The first sentence of the clause says:

The U.S. dollar is the sole currency of account and payment for all sums payable by the Russian Federation . . . in connection with the Bonds, including damages.

That’s well and good.  The US dollar is the currency of payment.  But then the clause goes on to say:

Any amount received . . . in a currency other than the U.S. dollar . . . by any Bondholder in respect of any sum . . . due to it from the Russian Federation shall only constitute a discharge to the Russian Federation to the extent of the U.S. dollar amount which the recipient is able to purchase with the amount so received or recovered in that other currency on the date of that receipt or recovery . . . If that U.S. dollar amount is less than the U.S. dollar amount expressed to be due to the recipient under any Bond, the Russian Federation shall indemnify such recipient against any loss sustained by it as a result. In any event, the Russian Federation shall indemnify the recipient against the cost of making any such purchase.

To my reading, Doug is right. Boiled down, the clause seems to say that payment in a different currency (e.g., rubles) can constitute a “discharge”, so long as the recipient can use those rubles to buy a sufficient number of dollars.  That seems to mean that Russia, can discharge its obligations by paying in rubles.

Now, maybe I have missed some other clause in the document that negates this.  It would not be the first time that that’s happened.  But I do remember reading a chapter in Lee Buchheit’s, How to Negotiate Eurocurrency Loan Agreements, (Chapter 20, if memory serves) that not only describes clauses like this, but also explains how they are a potential source of mischief if the clause was not written tightly enough to protect against the debtor using capital controls in a sneaky fashion.

The sneaky thing for Mr. Putin to do would be to make the payments in rubles into an account in Russia, immediately convert the rubles to dollars and then say that the dollars are frozen in place under capital controls.  Pay enough rubles and, according to the strict terms of the contract, that would be a discharge.  And Mr. Putin could say that those dollars would be frozen until his foreign assets in the west were unfrozen.

One might ask here: Doesn't the bond require payments to be made in NY?  Yes, but Section 15, the Currency Indemnity clause, describes what happens if the holder “recovers OR RECEIVES” a payment in another currency, presumably in another place.

And it says that the USD payment is “discharged” if the holder receives a sufficient amount of that other currency to buy $$$ in the amount originally due on the date the other currency is received or recovered.

All of that will have happened.

Would a court buy any of this? Probably depends on where the court is located.  London, NY or Moscow.

The problem probably could have been obviated had the Currency Indemnity clause specified that the dollars acquired with the other currency (rubles, in our hypothetical) be "freely transferrable dollars". But it doesn't say that.

Aiyiyiyi

Credit to Doug Mulliken. Errors are mine.

Spoils Don't go to the Aggressor

Mark Weidemaier & Mitu Gulati

Ukraine has suffered an unprovoked invasion by a militarily more powerful neighbor, Russia, that covets its territory. The weaker Ukraine, in danger of being overrun, desperately seeks external financing for defense and to support its population. What might we think the rules of international law would be regarding the responsibility to pay that debt?

The relevant law here is antiquated. There are a handful of precedents from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries where, best we can tell, the law was whatever it was convenient for the victor to assert. But, if one were to try and extract a doctrine out of those precedents, it would be that, while a victorious invader inherits the debts of the nation it invaded, it does not necessarily inherit debts incurred to resist the invasion. The doctrine even has a name: the law of “war debts”. To quote a 1924 treatise, “A creditor who advances money to a belligerent during a war to some extent adventures his money on the faith of the borrower’s success”.

That’s nuts. That doctrine incentivizes potential lenders to invest in the debt of the more powerful actor, even if the less powerful actor has a legitimate right to self-defense. It is perhaps not surprising that such an upside-down rule existed in the colonial era, when great powers constructed the law to justify their acquisition of territory (the original articulation of this doctrine seems to come from Britain after the Boer War). But today? In the supposed post-colonial era when borders are supposed to be sacrosanct absent the most egregious violations of human rights and colonial acquisitions by force are not supposed to happen? When an aggressor launches an unprovoked attack (Mr. Putin has his own version, we recognize), it seems logical both that that the aggressor should bear the cost of the victim’s self-defense and those who funded it should be the ones at risk. This rule internalizes the cost of misbehavior and might help deter aggression. This rule seems to set the right incentives whether or not the aggressor nation winds up being victorious.

In the Russia-Ukraine context then, who should be responsible for the extra borrowing that Ukraine has to do to defend itself? If the goal is to cause the misbehaving actor to internalize the costs it is imposing, the answer is surely Russia. Furthermore, to the extent lenders helped finance the Russian invasion, they are the ones who should face a high risk of nonpayment, not those who funded the Ukrainian defense. If we were to imagine a situation, post-war, where the international community had to allocate a limited pool of assets (e.g., frozen Russian reserves), we’d probably say that claimants who funded Ukraine’s self-defense should have a higher priority than claimants who helped fund Russian misbehavior. That is especially so if the lenders to Russia had reason to expect misbehavior. Maybe Russia even told them in its risk disclosures whilst borrowing – “Hey, don’t be surprised if I get sanctioned in the future – because I tend to misbehave”. (see Tracy Alloway (here), Adam Tooze (here), and us (here) on this).

None of this is rocket science. One of the things that legal rules are supposed to do is to incentivize good behavior and disincentivize bad behavior. As of this writing, the World Bank has just announced an emergency financing package of $700 million for Ukraine. Maybe that lending will be repaid by Russia, in a post invasion scenario on the theory that multilateral institutions such as the World Bank are not allowed to finance military expenditures. We don’t remember seeing any multilateral organization exception in the law of war debts though.

More important though, Ukraine needs financial assistance to defend itself and is surely going to be trying to borrow from the private markets. And lenders are going to be reluctant to fund it (or, will charge more) if they think they face significant risk of non-payment if Russia wins. Whether one liked it or not, risk disclosures would probably have to be made in the prospectus regarding the doctrines of state succession and war debts.

But what if the rule instead were that those who provided financing to Ukraine during these dire times were to have first shot at those frozen Russian assets in the post war period? (in legal lingo, priority)? Those risk disclosures and the pricing of the financing of the Ukrainian resistance might be different.

Maybe, just maybe, the free nations of the world (including those former colonial powers who created these doctrines) should announce a new and improved doctrine of war debts for the modern era: Spoils don’t go to the aggressor.

The "American Default" of 1933 and Some Possible Sanctions

Last week, my International Debt class was fortunate last week to have the opportunity to talk to Sebastian Edwards about his wonderful book “American Default”.  The book tells the astonishing (to me at least) story of the abrogation of gold clauses in US corporate and government bonds in 1933 and how that abrogation is then upheld by at 5-4 vote of the US Supreme Court in 1935.  Equally astonishing, as Sebastian’s book describes, the spillover effects in terms of costs to US future government borrowing, were near zero.  If anything, USG bonds were oversubscribed.

Our class session with Sebastian was last Wednesday and the world has witnessed some remarkable and disturbing events since then in Ukraine.  In the wake of our discussion of FDR’s 1933 abrogation of the gold clauses though, I found myself wondering about the following hypothetical for purposes of class discussion.

A large country, Bearland, brags that it has $630 billion of international reserves, the largest portion of which is held in the form of US Treasury bonds. 

Tomorrow afternoon the US Congress passes the following law:

Commencing at 12:00 noon EST on February 26, 2022, holders of US Government debt securities will be required, in order to redeem those instruments at maturity, to certify that neither they nor any predecessor in title to the securities has ever invaded the Republic of Ukraine.   Securities owned by any holder who cannot make this certification will be redeemed at maturity and the proceeds deposited in a blocked account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  

Context: Acme Capital, a New York based hedge fund, has acquired $1 billion of US Treasury bonds previously owned by Bearland.  Acme sues to declare the law unconstitutional and unenforceable. You are a law clerk to Justice Gelpern on the US Supreme Court.   She has asked you this question:  Don’t the Gold Clause cases from 1935 control this issue?   After all, Acme is getting its money so they are not harmed in that sense.  Acme just doesn’t like the fact that the money is blocked at the Fed”.

The foregoing strikes me as example of a situation in which the justices (and law clerks) must not only consider the legal correctness of the advice, but also its real world consequences.  In other words, very much the situation in 1935.

In the Bearland example, the legal question is whether the Bearland legislation imposes an ex post interference with contract or unconstitutional taking of Acme’s property by requiring the no-invasion certification.   

Advising that the measure is kosher, however, potentially puts all USG debt at risk of political interference. To see this, just change the words “invade Ukraine” in the Bearland certification to “invade Taiwan”.  Would any foreign state be prepared to buy US Treasury bonds knowing that they could be weaponized at any moment?  How much would that add to the interest rate on those bonds? Anything?

I wonder whether folks at the UST are considering strategies along these lines.  Maybe?

Law School Rankings: How Much do They Really Matter?

I've long assumed that law school rankings are very important to law student choices regarding where to attend school. After all, why else would law schools themselves care so much about the rankings -- sometimes even hiring and firing deans based on this single variable (my assumption here is the most in the academy don't see there to be much of substance in the rankings -- but I may be wrong).

A wonderful new study from Albert Yoon and Jesse Rothstein, "Choice as Revelation" two of my favorite empiricists in the academy (I loved their prior paper about mismatch), challenges the conventional wisdom.  As I understand the core finding, students don't attach much difference to small differences in rankings. They care about other things in these choices among close competitors.  Strikes me that this is an important finding.

This is not to say that students don't care at all about rankings; they do -- especially at the very top (Harvard, Stanford, Yale).  After that though, not so much.  

The abstract reads:

Education is a credence good. While the virtues of education are widely embraced, its qualities are difficult to discern, even among its consumers. The sizeable and increasing cost of tuition – as in the case of U.S. law schools – only add to the stakes. In response, law school rankings have emerged, with the purported goal to help students make more informed choices. While these rankings have generated both interest and debate, an important question has remained unanswered: how do prospective law students perceive these schools? Drawing upon data provided by the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC), we analyze the universe of law school applications for the period 1989 through 2017, creating a revealed preference ranking of law schools based solely on where applicants choose to matriculate given their offers of admission. We find that applicants strongly prefer Yale, Stanford, and Harvard, and to a lesser extent other schools in the top 20, but do not draw such sharp distinctions outside of these schools. For all but the very top schools, we cannot rule out that schools adjacent in the rankings are equally preferred by admitted students. We also separately analyze the application, admission, and matriculation stages of the law school matching process. Applicants apply broadly, we find, but that admissions and matriculation decisions hew closely to academic indicators. Our revealed preference rankings are similar those of the U.S. News law rankings at the top but bear little resemblance for the remaining schools. Our rankings offer a compelling alternative to commercial rankings, which are opaque and highly manipulatable. Our analyses also highlight the limitations of ordinal rankings, which by themselves can suggest meaningful differences amongst alternatives where they do not exist.

The Super Cool Belize "Debt for Coral Reefs" Restructuring

This blog post draws on ideas developed with Ugo Panizza (Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute) that form part of a paper we are working on. I am to blame for any errors though. 

In 2020, the stock of public debt in debt in developing and emerging market economies surpassed $19 trillion and reached 63% of the group’s GDP (up from 55% in 2019). Such levels of debt significantly increase the risk of multiple devastating debt crises hitting the global economy at the roughly the same time; a situation not seen since the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s. This is a scary prospect at a time when nations need to scale-up investment in climate change and sustainable growth.

The recent restructuring of Belize’s sovereign debt is an example of how a country can address a debt crisis while preserving investment that can promote sustainable growth. Hard hit by covid-19, Belize is restructuring its sovereign debt for the fifth time in two decades. So, why is this debt restructuring so exciting?

The Cheekiest Artist of Modern Times?

One of the students in my 1L Contracts class pointed me to this delightful article from the New York Times -- delightful because this is going to be so fun for us to discuss in class (here)

Here is the story as I understand it. A Danish artist, Jens Haaning, was commissioned by a Danish museum (the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art) to reproduce a couple of his prior works, where he had framed piles of real euros and kroner to symbolize wages and work in Austria and Denmark.  To do the reproduction work, the artist was paid 10,000 kroner and then also given a bunch of cash (532, 549 kroner) to put in the installation pieces.

The cheeky artist sent in a couple of blank canvases titled "Take the Money and Run", which seem to describe exactly what he did.  (The Times article literally has multiple photos of guests to the museum admiring the blank canvases -- or at least looking at them with interest).

The artist says that he gave them art -- symbolizing taking the money and running, (a modern critique of capitalism?). The museum director, Mr. Lasse Anderson (representing the capitalist museum?), appears neither amused nor pleased. He says: breach of contract.  

It is simply not possible to make this stuff up.  Maybe Tess and Dave will do an episode about this case for their brilliant Promises, Promises podcast?

I very much want the artist to win the contract suit. But if the museum director is right that the contract was for a reproduction of the prior piles of cash pieces (which seems likely from what the Times piece tells us), Jens will probably have to give the moolah back.  But not until after having gotten international notoriety as the cheekiest artist of modern times. And maybe that's all he was going for after all. Win win. 

I can only begin to imagine the kind of fun opinion someone like Richard Posner might have written on a case like this.

Many thanks to Maggie Rosenberg, 1L at U Virginia.

Scott & Kraus on the Private Law Podcast -- Magnifique!

Last year, when I was in zoom teaching hell and desperately looking for videos or podcasts with my contracts heroes to try and give my students a window into the magic of contract law and theory, I was unable to find anything at all that I could use for class from Bob Scott and Jody Kraus.  Lots of erudite law journal articles, yes. But I hate lengthy law review articles. I wanted to hear them talk and answer questions. 

My prayers have been answered, thanks to Felipe Jimenez's wonderful Private Law Podcast (here). The episode posted today is about Bob and Jody's wonderful and special collaboration that has given the world of contract law so much. And Felipe is brilliant in his gentle but insightful questioning (as an aside, if you are a fan of contracts theory, you might also like the episode with Brian Bix; I loved it).

Thank you, Felipe. Thank you, Bob and Jody. 

Coral Reef Protection in Exchange for Debt Relief: Could it Really Work?

Belize, as of this writing, is undertaking a restructuring of its sovereign bonds. Hard hit by covid and general economic woes, this is that nation’s fifth debt restructuring over the past decade and a half. This time though, Belize is trying to do something different with its restructuring.  Something that just might contain lessons for other emerging market nations struggling with covid related economic downturns.

Using funding from the environmental group, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Belize is doing a bond buyback, offering investors around 50% of face value.  Once purchased, the bonds are to be cancelled.  Belize has collective action clauses in the so-called superbond in question, so the deal will be binding on all holders of its external debt if a supermajority of creditors (75%) agree to the deal.  The dynamics of collective action clauses have been examined in excruciating detail elsewhere and I won’t get into that here. What interests me, and has intrigued many in the financial press (e.g., see here,  here, here, here, and here) is Belize’s attempt to tie a promise to behave in a greener fashion in the future to its request for debt relief from investors.

Specifically, Belize is promising investors that it will, in conjunction with TNC set aside a significant portion of the funds that it will save from doing the restructuring for environmental protection endeavors in the future (Belize's gorgeous coral reefs feature prominently in most accounts of the deal). As explained by a Belizean official:

As an integral part of the offer to repurchase the bonds, Belize will commit to its bondholders to transfer an amount equal to 1.3% of the country’s 2020 GDP to fund a Marine Conservation Endowment Account to be administered by a TNC affiliate. After a period in which the Endowment Account will retain its investment earnings in order to reach a targeted aggregate size, the annual earnings on the Account will thereafter be used, in perpetuity, to fund marine conservation projects in Belize identified by TNC and approved by the Government of Belize.

I have at least four questions that strike me as relevant to figuring out whether this strategy can work for other nations also facing covid related debt restructuring needs.

Bypassing the Indenture Trustee?

Mark Weidemaier & Mitu Gulati

Earlier today we had a great time recording a Clauses and Controversies episode about the Province of Buenos Aires restructuring, which should post sometime next week. Our guest was Bloomberg reporter Scott Squires, who knows the Argentine context inside out and has also taken a deep dive into the mechanics and details of this restructuring. We got to talk about the PBA’s various shenanigans, and one aspect of our conversation continues to confuse us all. PBA offered to pay past due interest to creditors who consented to the restructuring; non-consenters did not receive the payment.

In the post linked above we wondered whether this payment, when added to PBA’s various threats, made the deal coercive. And we wondered why creditors, despite receiving fairly generous financial terms, were willing to accept this treatment. One answer we got from multiple sources is that it is simply too difficult and time consuming to deal with the trustee. Basically, it’s hard to get the trustee to act. First, holders of 25% in principal amount must instruct it to bring suit, then they have to negotiate the trustee’s indemnity, etc. And all this takes time. Meanwhile, the so-called “no action” clause in the indenture blocks individual bondholders from filing suit unless and until the trustee fails to act for 60 days. Perhaps any challenge the PBA’s conduct required quick, forceful legal action, but bondholders upset by the deal couldn’t muster the required 25% support or viewed the delay inherent in this process as a deal-breaker.

This would all make sense, were it not for the unusual drafting of another contract term. The clause played an important role in a lawsuit initially filed by Goldentree, one of PBA’s biggest creditors. Goldentree later changed course and were viewed as one of the drivers of the eventual deal. But the lawsuit was premised on the ability of individual bondholders to circumvent the trustee, found in this language (emphasis ours):

[E]ach Holder of Debt Securities shall have the right, which is absolute and unconditional, to receive payment of the principal of and interest on (including Additional Amounts) its Debt Security on the stated maturity date for such payment expressed in such Debt Security (as such Debt Security may be amended or modified pursuant to Article Eleven) and to institute suit for the enforcement of any such payment, and such right shall not be impaired without the consent of such Holder.

Our issuer-side friends have scoffed at this reading, telling us that the “no action” clause plainly requires all bondholder litigation to go through the trustee, at least until the bond has matured. That may be the common understanding. But that reading isn’t easy to square with the language above, which can plausibly be read to give individual investors the right to sue for missed coupon payments. Investors have a right to get “principal and interest on . . . the stated maturity date for such payment.” This is an unusual formulation. It is natural to say that principal comes due on the maturity date. But interest? Does interest “mature?” Our issuer-side friends would say, we assume, that the use of “stated maturity date” reinforces their understanding of the effect of the no action clause. But that reading seems to ignore the language “for such payment” (underlined above). This seems quite clearly to refer to individual payments, and the clause refers to both principal and interest. And it seems perfectly reasonable to interpret all of this to mean that, on the date when the interest is due, the interest obligation matures. Under this reading, investors can always sue for missed payments. It is other litigation—such as an acceleration in response to a cross-default trigger—that must go through the trustee.

Anyway, reading further, the clause says that an investor’s right to “such payment” – i.e., the interest that was due – and to institute suit” cannot be impaired “without the consent of such Holder.” That would at least arguably have enabled individual bondholder suits for past interest.

Again, many of our contacts in the market think this reading is nonsense and ignores the purpose and history of this clause. And we don’t really have a strong opinion as to which reading is correct. But we do think the reading above—which is presumably the reading underlying Goldentree’s suit—is plausible. Certainly there is a fairly straightforward argument to that effect based on the text of the clause, and text seems to matter quite a bit to judges applying New York law. It never ceases to amaze us how many seemingly settled questions—at least in the eyes of market participants—are not well reflected in contract language.

Investors in Province of Buenos Aires Bonds Might Want to Look at their Prescription Clauses

Mark Weidemaier & Mitu Gulati

The Province of Buenos Aires (PBA) is about to conclude its much delayed exchange offer. The exchange offer has been revised over and over and has featured many restructuring techniques detested by investors (Pac Man, re-designation, hard-nosed exit consents). But it seems as if the exchange may finally go through.

Rather than write about redesignation or any of the more salient features of the exchange, we want to discuss a more obscure feature, which differs in the two types of bond contracts PBA is offering. (Investors don’t have a choice; those with old bonds (from 2006) get one set of provisions and those with newer bonds (from 2015) get another.) This post is about the different prescription provisions being offered to the two types of bondholders, old and new.

Afsharipour on "Women and M&A"

I'm writing to second Melissa's wonderful post (below) on Afra Afsharipour's recent article.  My thanks to Melissa for pointing out this super piece.

There is a rich literature on the question of the gender gap in the legal profession, with wonderful work by scholars such as Elizabeth Gorman, Ronit Dinotvitzer, Fiona Kay, Joyce Sperling and others. One of the gaps in this literature that I've found over the years though is the lack of in-depth analyses of particular practice areas or individual firms.  Many of the analyses look at the gender gaps in the fractions of law students, junior associates and partners and stop there (I am guilty as charged on this). But, of course, we know (or at least suspect) that there is likely tremendous variation across fields. Understanding that variation might help us better understand what causes the gender gap and how to remedy it.