2008年的经济危机引发了美国历史上最轰动的一些破产案例,包括雷曼兄弟、通用汽车和华盛顿互惠银行。如今,冠状病毒疫情全球爆发,可能引发更严重的危机,其他大公司也面临着类似的命运。
“全美和全球的破产律师都正在为破产潮做准备。”奥睿律所资深律师马克·莱文森说。
莱文森和其他专家称,破产潮要在数月之后才能完全显现,目前,公司和出借方依然在努力评估危机的破坏程度和政府的应对举措,但有鉴于新冠疫情的性质,很多行业,如旅游、酒店和娱乐业里的公司都必然会面临财务灾难。
一些受创最严重的公司可能会被迫清算,但更多的美国公司可能倾向于按照该国《破产法》第11章来申请破产保护,依据这一条法令,公司可在联邦破产法官监督下,重新与供应商和雇员协商债务条款和合约义务。依据第11章进行的成功重组可以防止公司在营收大幅下跌时倒闭,在当前的新冠疫情这类危机期间,这条法令是一个有着重要价值的工具。
好消息是,相对于2008-09年期间,目前政府决策者和美国破产管理体制的准备更为充分,因而能够更好地应对即将到来的倒闭潮,但当前的危机也为政治领导者们出了一个难题:是否应该通过拨款或贷款帮助某些行业摆脱困境,就像现在国会正打算对航空业施加的紧急援助那样,还是说寄希望于第11章的规定,让企业重塑自身财务健康。
雷曼兄弟破产是前车之鉴
投行雷曼兄弟在2008年9月15日的突然破产成为了金融危机的标志性时刻之一,众多惊慌失措、衣冠楚楚的交易员在一夜之间成为了曼哈顿街头的沦落人。雷曼混乱的倒闭场面也助推了更广泛的经济动荡,也就是众所周知的“经济大衰退”。
“大多数破产领域的学者都有一个共识,雷曼的破产处理是很笨拙的。” 哥伦比亚大学法学教授艾德·莫里森说,“雷曼轰然倒塌,没有人试着挽救它,这也给其他银行带来了不确定因素。”
莫里森表示,雷曼混乱的倒闭场面之所以发生,是因为决策者在解决雷曼窘境的根本原因上行动缓慢,那就是信贷安排失灵,它带来的流动性危机让雷曼无法偿还债务。政府的犹豫不决也营造了一种不确定氛围,让经济形势雪上加霜。
最终,美联储和财政部联手出台了一些政策工具,主要以借贷担保的形式来防止其他银行的倒闭,确保市场流动性,但这些政策出台之际,经济已经出现了更大范围的危机。
在当前的新冠疫情危机中,美联储迅速部署了08年后开发的用于规避经济风险的政策工具,其中包括买进学生、企业债务和抵押支持债券的紧急借贷安排。
所有这一切,再加上08年后,银行业“压力测试”中,要求银行加大现金储备以应对紧急情况的要求,这些都有助于预防金融领域再次出现雷曼式的崩塌。
对于金融业来说,这些经济预防措施尤为重要,因为即使《破产法》第11章可以防止债权人收缴破产公司资产,但这条“安全港”条款并不包含金融公司。“破产法对于拯救银行来说并不是很理想,当雷曼兄弟提出申请时,破产法提供的保护非常有限,因此债权人毫无顾忌地瓜分了他们的资产。”莫里森说。
但对于零售商、电影院、赌场和度假服务提供商而言,他们完全可以寻求《破产法》的保护。威嘉律师事务所重组业务联席主席嘉里·霍尔茨说,如果这些行业无法获得新的流动性,那么它们在接下来的几个月中均面临破产风险。
霍尔茨说,他的电话已在响个不停,大公司纷纷致电询问如何终止合约,如何获得信贷额度,以及如何应对接下来的局面。
现成法律可保护受困企业
国会已经为美国经济准备了2万亿美元的拯救方案,其中数亿美元用于援助航空公司和其他受冲击行业。但是,尽管这些企业所面临的困境是显而易见的,也有人对国会援助的必要性表示质疑。
“决策者看似对破产十分抵触,这是一个错误。” 哥大的莫里森说,“既然我们有《破产法》第11章这个现成的方法来解决航空公司危机,那么为什么还要给他们撒钱呢?”
莫里森表示,有序的破产能够让公司在维持运营的同时,清理资产负债,而且在很多情况下还能为未来的盈利做好铺垫。他提到,2009年通用汽车依据第11章破产,就是一个典型案例,尽管这一过程中,有很多政客和工会从中阻挠。
加州大学黑斯廷斯法学院破产法学者杰瑞德·埃利亚斯提到了2009年另一件依第11章成功申请破产保护的案例,申请者是购物中心物业主“通用增长物业公司”(General Growth Properties),这个案例对于当前的新冠危机尤为有借鉴意义。在他看来,通用增长在当时是一家一流的公司,其申请300亿美元的破产保护,是为了免遭投机债权人的毒手,这些人希望将其资产止赎,待金融危机过后再倒手卖个好价钱。最后,这家房产公司在第11章的保护下挺过了危机,减少了债务负担,并将一部分资产剥离至一家新公司。
在当前危机中,埃利亚斯认为,通用增长物业公司成功的破产保护流程可以为滑雪胜地、邮轮运营商、酒店和出现巨额财务损失的其他行业提供了一个可参考的路线图。与此同时,破产法近期有所修改,简化版的第11章可适用于更多的小型企业。奥睿律所的律师莱文森称,这里的小企业是指无需向美国证券委员会报备,且债务低于200万美元的企业。
就大公司而言,使用破产法第11章而不是接受政府紧急援助,还有着道德层面上的意义。莫里森指出,政府为航空等行业提供的救济款来自每一位纳税人,如果被援助行业后续经营不善,所有的纳税人,包括低收入人群,都要承担损失。相比之下,破产保护申请通常意味着损失仅由其股东来消化。莫里森认为,后者更为公平,因为股东从一开始就对这样的风险做了背书。
莫里森和其他人还指出,航空公司、赌场和其他遭受疫情冲击的公司,此前曾经历过破产的,现在仍可以再次申请。
但是,尽管无论从现实还是道义上讲,大企业申请破产保护都更有道理,但它从政治上讲却并不有利,比如,第11章实施后,就会出现更多的失业。此外,莫里森表示,特朗普总统爱用股市指数的攀升来标榜其执政的成功,然而,一旦诸多美国大型企业申请破产保护,这些指数会应声下跌。
未来会“面目全非”
尽管上一次金融危机的破产潮为当前的疫情危机提供了一些可借鉴的经验,但专家们表示,当前的不确定性因素太多,所以很难做出明确的预测,一是不知道疫情到底造成了多大的经济损失,二则取决于美国政府的应对举措。不过,近些天来,各项应对措施的细节,包括大规模的刺激方案,变得逐渐明朗起来。
然而,这里还有一个更大的不确定性,那就是,因为疫情和人际隔离,消费者生活、工作和购物的方式可能会发生永久的变化,这就更难去预测,陷入困境的公司到底是不是还有前途。
黑斯廷斯法学院的埃利亚斯教授表示,一切事物的需求,从办公空间到餐厅座椅,在疫情过后都会出现很大的变化。这会使得那些债权人和重组专家们,在公司要推动破产重组申请时,不会很积极,因为,他们的工作是评估公司未来的资产价值,所以,他们一定要确认公司在疫情危机后的盈利能力,才会真正去推动重组。
威嘉律所的霍尔茨说,当前危机有别于上一场金融危机的另一点,在于大公司业务全球化的程度。他预测,冠状疫情危机后,更多公司可能会搬迁去那些有着优惠经济措施,更容易宣布破产的地方,或者干脆撤出其他地区。
政府援助与破产重组相结合,应该基本可以帮助大多数受冲击最严重的企业度过危机,但他们的业务可能在未来发生巨大的变化。“我们很难弄清楚疫情之后会是什么情况。历史告诉我们,当很多事情一起发生的时候,一切都会变得面目全非。”埃利亚斯说。
译者:冯丰
审校:夏林
责编:雨晨
2008年的经济危机引发了美国历史上最轰动的一些破产案例,包括雷曼兄弟、通用汽车和华盛顿互惠银行。如今,冠状病毒疫情全球爆发,可能引发更严重的危机,其他大公司也面临着类似的命运。
“全美和全球的破产律师都正在为破产潮做准备。”奥睿律所资深律师马克·莱文森说。
莱文森和其他专家称,破产潮要在数月之后才能完全显现,目前,公司和出借方依然在努力评估危机的破坏程度和政府的应对举措,但有鉴于新冠疫情的性质,很多行业,如旅游、酒店和娱乐业里的公司都必然会面临财务灾难。
一些受创最严重的公司可能会被迫清算,但更多的美国公司可能倾向于按照该国《破产法》第11章来申请破产保护,依据这一条法令,公司可在联邦破产法官监督下,重新与供应商和雇员协商债务条款和合约义务。依据第11章进行的成功重组可以防止公司在营收大幅下跌时倒闭,在当前的新冠疫情这类危机期间,这条法令是一个有着重要价值的工具。
好消息是,相对于2008-09年期间,目前政府决策者和美国破产管理体制的准备更为充分,因而能够更好地应对即将到来的倒闭潮,但当前的危机也为政治领导者们出了一个难题:是否应该通过拨款或贷款帮助某些行业摆脱困境,就像现在国会正打算对航空业施加的紧急援助那样,还是说寄希望于第11章的规定,让企业重塑自身财务健康。
雷曼兄弟破产是前车之鉴
投行雷曼兄弟在2008年9月15日的突然破产成为了金融危机的标志性时刻之一,众多惊慌失措、衣冠楚楚的交易员在一夜之间成为了曼哈顿街头的沦落人。雷曼混乱的倒闭场面也助推了更广泛的经济动荡,也就是众所周知的“经济大衰退”。
“大多数破产领域的学者都有一个共识,雷曼的破产处理是很笨拙的。” 哥伦比亚大学法学教授艾德·莫里森说,“雷曼轰然倒塌,没有人试着挽救它,这也给其他银行带来了不确定因素。”
莫里森表示,雷曼混乱的倒闭场面之所以发生,是因为决策者在解决雷曼窘境的根本原因上行动缓慢,那就是信贷安排失灵,它带来的流动性危机让雷曼无法偿还债务。政府的犹豫不决也营造了一种不确定氛围,让经济形势雪上加霜。
最终,美联储和财政部联手出台了一些政策工具,主要以借贷担保的形式来防止其他银行的倒闭,确保市场流动性,但这些政策出台之际,经济已经出现了更大范围的危机。
在当前的新冠疫情危机中,美联储迅速部署了08年后开发的用于规避经济风险的政策工具,其中包括买进学生、企业债务和抵押支持债券的紧急借贷安排。
所有这一切,再加上08年后,银行业“压力测试”中,要求银行加大现金储备以应对紧急情况的要求,这些都有助于预防金融领域再次出现雷曼式的崩塌。
对于金融业来说,这些经济预防措施尤为重要,因为即使《破产法》第11章可以防止债权人收缴破产公司资产,但这条“安全港”条款并不包含金融公司。“破产法对于拯救银行来说并不是很理想,当雷曼兄弟提出申请时,破产法提供的保护非常有限,因此债权人毫无顾忌地瓜分了他们的资产。”莫里森说。
但对于零售商、电影院、赌场和度假服务提供商而言,他们完全可以寻求《破产法》的保护。威嘉律师事务所重组业务联席主席嘉里·霍尔茨说,如果这些行业无法获得新的流动性,那么它们在接下来的几个月中均面临破产风险。
霍尔茨说,他的电话已在响个不停,大公司纷纷致电询问如何终止合约,如何获得信贷额度,以及如何应对接下来的局面。
现成法律可保护受困企业
国会已经为美国经济准备了2万亿美元的拯救方案,其中数亿美元用于援助航空公司和其他受冲击行业。但是,尽管这些企业所面临的困境是显而易见的,也有人对国会援助的必要性表示质疑。
“决策者看似对破产十分抵触,这是一个错误。” 哥大的莫里森说,“既然我们有《破产法》第11章这个现成的方法来解决航空公司危机,那么为什么还要给他们撒钱呢?”
莫里森表示,有序的破产能够让公司在维持运营的同时,清理资产负债,而且在很多情况下还能为未来的盈利做好铺垫。他提到,2009年通用汽车依据第11章破产,就是一个典型案例,尽管这一过程中,有很多政客和工会从中阻挠。
加州大学黑斯廷斯法学院破产法学者杰瑞德·埃利亚斯提到了2009年另一件依第11章成功申请破产保护的案例,申请者是购物中心物业主“通用增长物业公司”(General Growth Properties),这个案例对于当前的新冠危机尤为有借鉴意义。在他看来,通用增长在当时是一家一流的公司,其申请300亿美元的破产保护,是为了免遭投机债权人的毒手,这些人希望将其资产止赎,待金融危机过后再倒手卖个好价钱。最后,这家房产公司在第11章的保护下挺过了危机,减少了债务负担,并将一部分资产剥离至一家新公司。
在当前危机中,埃利亚斯认为,通用增长物业公司成功的破产保护流程可以为滑雪胜地、邮轮运营商、酒店和出现巨额财务损失的其他行业提供了一个可参考的路线图。与此同时,破产法近期有所修改,简化版的第11章可适用于更多的小型企业。奥睿律所的律师莱文森称,这里的小企业是指无需向美国证券委员会报备,且债务低于200万美元的企业。
就大公司而言,使用破产法第11章而不是接受政府紧急援助,还有着道德层面上的意义。莫里森指出,政府为航空等行业提供的救济款来自每一位纳税人,如果被援助行业后续经营不善,所有的纳税人,包括低收入人群,都要承担损失。相比之下,破产保护申请通常意味着损失仅由其股东来消化。莫里森认为,后者更为公平,因为股东从一开始就对这样的风险做了背书。
莫里森和其他人还指出,航空公司、赌场和其他遭受疫情冲击的公司,此前曾经历过破产的,现在仍可以再次申请。
但是,尽管无论从现实还是道义上讲,大企业申请破产保护都更有道理,但它从政治上讲却并不有利,比如,第11章实施后,就会出现更多的失业。此外,莫里森表示,特朗普总统爱用股市指数的攀升来标榜其执政的成功,然而,一旦诸多美国大型企业申请破产保护,这些指数会应声下跌。
未来会“面目全非”
尽管上一次金融危机的破产潮为当前的疫情危机提供了一些可借鉴的经验,但专家们表示,当前的不确定性因素太多,所以很难做出明确的预测,一是不知道疫情到底造成了多大的经济损失,二则取决于美国政府的应对举措。不过,近些天来,各项应对措施的细节,包括大规模的刺激方案,变得逐渐明朗起来。
然而,这里还有一个更大的不确定性,那就是,因为疫情和人际隔离,消费者生活、工作和购物的方式可能会发生永久的变化,这就更难去预测,陷入困境的公司到底是不是还有前途。
黑斯廷斯法学院的埃利亚斯教授表示,一切事物的需求,从办公空间到餐厅座椅,在疫情过后都会出现很大的变化。这会使得那些债权人和重组专家们,在公司要推动破产重组申请时,不会很积极,因为,他们的工作是评估公司未来的资产价值,所以,他们一定要确认公司在疫情危机后的盈利能力,才会真正去推动重组。
威嘉律所的霍尔茨说,当前危机有别于上一场金融危机的另一点,在于大公司业务全球化的程度。他预测,冠状疫情危机后,更多公司可能会搬迁去那些有着优惠经济措施,更容易宣布破产的地方,或者干脆撤出其他地区。
政府援助与破产重组相结合,应该基本可以帮助大多数受冲击最严重的企业度过危机,但他们的业务可能在未来发生巨大的变化。“我们很难弄清楚疫情之后会是什么情况。历史告诉我们,当很多事情一起发生的时候,一切都会变得面目全非。”埃利亚斯说。
译者:冯丰
审校:夏林
责编:雨晨
The economic collapse of 2008 triggered some of the most high-profile bankruptcies in U.S. history, including those of Lehman Brothers, General Motors, and Washington Mutual. Now, in the face of the even larger crisis brought about by the coronavirus, other big companies are bracing for a similar fate.
“Bankruptcy lawyers across the country and the world are preparing for an onslaught,” says Marc Levinson, senior counsel at the law firm Orrick.
The full onslaught is several months away, predict Levinson and other experts, who say companies and lenders are still trying to assess the magnitude of the current crisis, as well as the government response to it. But the nature of the coronavirus means financial catastrophe is inevitable for many companies in sectors like travel, hospitality, and entertainment.
Some of the hardest-hit companies may be forced to liquidate. But more are likely to opt for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under Chapter 11, a company can renegotiate the terms of its debts and contractual obligations with suppliers and employees, through a process overseen by a federal bankruptcy judge. A successful Chapter 11 reorganization can prevent a company from having to go out of business if its revenue plummets—making it a potentially invaluable tool during a crisis like the current one.
The good news is that government policymakers and the U.S. bankruptcy regime are better prepared than in 2008–09 to weather the impending wave of business failures. But the current crisis will also present political leaders with hard choices about whether to bail out certain industries with grants and loans—as Congress is set to do for the airline industry—or instead rely on Chapter 11 in hopes of restoring them to financial health.
Different from Lehman
The sudden bankruptcy of the investment bank Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15, 2008, became one of the signature moments of the financial crisis, casting shocked traders in expensive suits abruptly onto the streets of Manhattan. Lehman’s chaotic collapse also helped spur the broader economic upheaval that became known as the Great Recession.
“The consensus among most bankruptcy scholars is the handling of Lehman was bungled,” says Ed Morrison, a law professor at Columbia University. “It was allowed to fail in a spectacular way, and created uncertainty about the other banks.”
Morrison says the chaos of Lehman’s collapse came about because policymakers were slow to address the underlying cause of the bank’s distress—the seizing up of credit facilities, which created a liquidity crisis that meant Lehman couldn’t meet its borrowing obligations. Government dithering also produced a climate of uncertainty that exacerbated the economic fallout.
Eventually, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department devised tools—primarily in the form of backstops for lending—to prevent the collapse of other banks, and to ensure liquidity in the markets. But by the time those tools were deployed, the wider economy had been battered.
In the present crisis, the Federal Reserve has been nimble in deploying the policy tools it developed in 2008 to mitigate the economic fallout. These include emergency lending facilities that will buy up student and corporate debt, as well as mortgage-backed securities.
All of this—along with post-2008 “stress tests” that have required banks to maintain larger cash reserves for emergencies—have helped forestall a Lehman-style meltdown in the financial sector.
This has been doubly important since some Chapter 11 “safe harbor” provisions, which prevent creditors from seizing a bankrupt company’s assets, don’t extend to financial firms. “The bankruptcy code is not very good for saving banks. When Lehman filed, bankruptcy offered little shelter, and creditors were free to rip it apart,” Morrison says.
This is not the case for the likes of retailers, movie theaters, casinos, and vacation providers—all of which face exposure to bankruptcy in the coming months if they are unable to source new liquidity, according to Gary Holtzer, who cochairs the restructuring practice at Weil Gotshal & Manges.
Holtzer says his phone is already ringing constantly with big companies inquiring about how to terminate contracts, deploy lines of credit, and, more generally, brace for what’s to come.
The case for bankruptcy
Congress has prepared a $2 trillion rescue package for the U.S. economy, which includes hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for airlines and other distressed industries. While the plight of these businesses is obvious, not everyone believes aid from Congress is necessary.
“It’s a mistake for policymakers to be as averse to bankruptcy as they seem to be,” says Morrison, the Columbia law professor. “Why do we need bailouts when we have a ready-made solution to airline distress called Chapter 11?”
Morrison notes that an orderly bankruptcy allows firms to maintain operations and clean up their balance sheets and, in many cases, become profitable in the future. He cites the 2009 bankruptcy of General Motors as the “poster child” for Chapter 11, notwithstanding the influence of politicians and unions on the process.
Jared Ellias, a bankruptcy scholar at UC Hastings College of the Law, points to another Chapter 11 filing from 2009—that of mall operator General Growth Properties—as particularly instructive for the present crisis. He describes GGP at the time as a “best in class” company and explains that its $30 billion bankruptcy filing shielded it from opportunistic creditors who hoped to foreclose on its properties and sell them for a markup when the financial crisis passed. Instead, GGP weathered the crisis by means of Chapter 11, reducing its debt load and spinning off some of its assets into a new company.
In the current crisis, Ellias suggests that GGP’s successful bankruptcy process could provide a road map for ski resorts, cruise operators, hotels, and other industries facing devastating financial losses. Meanwhile, recent changes to the bankruptcy code mean a streamlined version Chapter 11 is available to many more small businesses. According to Levinson, the Orrick attorney, the small-business regime is available to companies that don’t report to the SEC and have less than $2 million in debt.
In the case of big companies, there may also be a moral case for using Chapter 11 rather than government bailouts to weather the coronavirus shock. Morrison points out that government-backed rescues for the airlines and other industries would stick every American taxpayer—including low-income ones—with any losses that arise. By contrast, a bankruptcy filing typically means it is shareholders who absorb the losses. Morrison suggests the latter outcome is more fair, since shareholders signed on for such a risk in the first place.
Morrison and others also point out that airlines, casinos, and other companies currently facing the coronavirus shock have gone through bankruptcy before and could do so again.
But despite the practical and moral arguments in favor of letting big companies go bankrupt, there are powerful political ones against doing so. These include the job losses and other disruptions that Chapter 11 typically entails. Meanwhile, Morrison notes that the current President has pegged much of his administration’s success to the stock market indexes—and that those indexes would decline if a series of major American companies were to file for bankruptcy.
What lies ahead
While the bankruptcies of the last financial crisis provide lessons for the current one, experts note that there is simply too much uncertainty right now to make confident predictions. Part of this uncertainty, of course, relates to the extent of the economic damage the virus will inflict, while part of it surrounds the response of the U.S. government—though details of that response, including the massive stimulus package, have become clearer in recent days.
There is a further source of uncertainty, however, that makes the future fate of troubled companies even harder to predict. This relates to the possibility that some of the changes wrought by the pandemic and social distancing will permanently alter how consumers live, work, and shop.
Ellias, the UC Hastings professor, notes that demand for everything from office space to seats at restaurants could be very different once the coronavirus has passed. This means that creditors and restructuring experts, who rely on evaluating the future value of assets, will be skittish about pushing companies to enter bankruptcy until they can assess what their revenues might look like after the crisis.
Another factor that makes the current crisis different from the last one is the degree to which big companies have globalized their operations, says Holtzer, the Weil lawyer. He predicts the coronavirus crisis could lead firms to consolidate production in parts of the world where governments offer favorable economic terms and declare bankruptcy, or simply pull out of other regions.
A combination of bailouts and bankruptcy are likely to help most of the hardest-hit companies survive the coronavirus crisis. But their businesses may also look very different in the future.
“It’s hard to know what’s on the other side. History teaches us that when things are snapped together, they won’t look like they did when all this began,” says Ellias.