Bankruptcy Litigation

Myers v Kestrel – The Limits of the Doctrine of Minority Oppression

Posted on

Financially stressed companies often seek to agree significant changes of the terms of their debts with their lenders outside of a formal insolvency process. It is not unusual for borrowers to be able to persuade a majority of creditors to agree to radical amendments, often in the teeth of objection from minority creditors. This Client Alert highlights some recent key case law relating to the protection of dissenting creditors using the doctrine of minority oppression. It also discusses a more recent case, where a judge declined to use this doctrine.

This Client Alert highlights some recent key case law relating to the protection of dissenting creditors using the doctrine of minority oppression. It also discusses a more recent case, where a judge declined to use this doctrine.

READ MORE →

The Unappealing Prospects For Debtors Whose Bankruptcy Plans Are Denied Confirmation

Posted on

The United States Supreme Court decided a bankruptcy appeal on May 4th that holds that, even though creditors and others aggrieved by the confirmation of a bankruptcy plan can appeal the order confirming the plan as a matter of right, a debtor has no such right to appeal an order denying confirmation.  The basic logic employed by the Court is that an order confirming a plan moves the case forward and alters the rights of the parties, whereas an order denying confirmation does neither because the debtor can merely propose another, different plan.

The case is Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank,[1] an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts that made its way through the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  The unanimous decision was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

READ MORE →

Momentive: Case Update

Posted on

As an update to our prior blog post, on May 4, 2015, Vincent Briccetti, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued a decision affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming Momentive’s cramdown chapter 11 plan.  The decision was long awaited with the parties having completed briefing in December 2014.

Judge Briccetti followed the reasoning of the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed the use of the “formula” approach to determine the cramdown interest rate.  Under the formula approach, the cramdown interest rate is equal to the sum of a “risk free” base rate (such as the prime rate) plus a risk margin of 1-3%.  Judge Briccetti rejected the “efficient market” approach advocated by the first and 1.5 lien noteholders, affirming the view that rates should not include any profit to secured creditors.  Under the efficient market approach, the cramdown interest rate is based on the interest rate the market would pay on such a loan.

READ MORE →

Should Underwater Junior Liens Survive Bankruptcy?

and Posted on

This article is an excerpt written for the Distressed Download.  The full article is available here.

Introduction

On March 24th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the consolidated appeals of two decisions from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Bank of America v. Caulkett[1] and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona.[2]  The appeals address an issue left unresolved by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dewsnup v. Timm:[3] that is, does section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code void, i.e., “strip off” a valid junior mortgage lien in a chapter 7 case if the mortgage loan is completely underwater.  These cases involve the treatment in chapter 7 bankruptcy cases of “undersecured” or “underwater” second-lien home mortgages.  Debtors who have granted such mortgages have no equity in their houses because the houses are worth less than the amount outstanding on the mortgage loans.

In a chapter 7 case, an individual debtor is able to obtain a discharge of his or her debts following the liquidation of the debtor’s non-exempt assets by a bankruptcy trustee, who then distributes the proceeds to creditors.  In Dewsnup, the Supreme Court held that section 506 does not permit an individual chapter 7 debtor to reduce (or “strip down”) a first-lien mortgage loan to the value of the real property where the amount owed is greater than the property value.  Relying on Dewsnup, every circuit court to consider the issue except the Eleventh Circuit has determined that section 506 also does not permit individual debtors to void completely underwater junior mortgage.[4]

Although the housing market has been rebounding in many jurisdictions, there are numerous properties subject to multiple mortgage liens that are worth less than the amount of the first-priority mortgage.  The Supreme Court’s resolution of the Caulkett and Toledo-Cardona cases will either ratify the trend of other circuits, which would benefit junior lenders, or overturn it, which would favor homeowners and first-lien mortgagees. A ruling prohibiting lien stripping also could severely impair the ability of business and individual debtors to use the statutory power to restructure and avoid liens in chapters 11, 12 and 13. Regardless of the outcome, the decision will have widespread ramifications through the secondary housing market.

READ MORE →

Overview and Analysis of Select Provisions of the ABI Chapter 11 Reform Commission Final Report and Recommendations

and Posted on

Part Two of Three

Last month, Orrick’s Restructuring team began a three-part look at the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Chapter 11 Reform Report. In part one we looked at issues related to confirmation, valuation, financing and asset sales. This second part focuses on modifications to the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbors” for derivatives and other complex financial transactions. The final part will focus on professional compensation, treatment of executory contracts and other interesting topics.

To view the full article, please click here.

Momentive: Where does it stand?

Posted on

On September 9, 2014, following a hotly contested four-day confirmation hearing, Robert Drain, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued a bench ruling approving Momentive’s chapter 11 plan.  See In re MPM Silicones, LLC, No. 14-22503-rdd, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3926 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014).  Momentive’s plan provided for the company’s first and 1.5 lien noteholders to receive new notes with extended maturities at a reduced interest rate, while fully equitizing the second lien noteholders.  Holders of senior subordinated notes did not receive any recovery.  At the heart of the plan was a $600 million rights offering backstopped by the second lien noteholders.

In approving the plan, Judge Drain overruled objections filed by trustees for the first and 1.5 lien noteholders who argued that the plan was not “fair and equitable” because the proposed cramdown interest rate for each of the new notes was below the applicable market rate.  The first and 1.5 lien noteholders also asserted that a make-whole premium would have been due upon a repayment of the debt  pursuant to language in the first and 1.5 lien note indentures.  The trustee representing holders of senior subordinated notes also objected to the plan on the grounds that it impermissibly subordinated the claims of senior subordinated noteholders to the deficiency claims of second lien noteholders, which resulted in the senior subordinated noteholders not receiving any recovery.  The trustee for the senior subordinated notes also argued that the plan violated the absolute priority rule because Momentive and its debtor-subsidiaries retained intercompany interests even though the senior subordinated notes were not paid in full.

Although Judge Drain’s bench decision touched on several important confirmation topics, the ruling was controversial because it explicitly rejected a market-based approach to calculating the cramdown interest rate and endorsed the “formula approach” espoused in the chapter 13 cases Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004) and In re Valenti, 105 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1997).  Under the formula approach, the debtor must, in a cram-down scenario, provide a secured creditor with new notes bearing interest equal to a “risk free” base rate (such as the prime rate) plus a risk adjustment of 1-3%.  Importantly, he found while market pricing includes an element of profit, the Bankruptcy Code has no such requirement and thus the risk adjustment should be just that – an adjustment that reflects the ultimate risk of nonpayment, and not a mechanism to recover opportunity costs.  Judge Drain’s decision conflicts with decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits as well as some lower court opinions.  In economic terms, Momentive’s oversecured first and 1.5 lien noteholders lost nearly $100 million in trading value for their existing notes because the cramdown interest rate was calculated using the formula approach versus a market rate.

Following his confirmation decision, Judge Drain denied the creditors’ immediate request for a stay of consummation of the plan pending appeal.  Whether a stay pending appeal is granted is committed to the discretion of the judge after considering the following factors:  (i) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay, (ii) whether a party will suffer substantial injury if a stay is issued, (iii) whether the movant has demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on appeal, and (iv) the public interest that may be affected.  On September 11, 2014, Judge Drain formally entered an order confirming Momentive’s plan, prompting the trustees for the first and 1.5 lien noteholders as well as the trustee for the senior subordinated noteholders to file an appeal with the district court and once again seek a stay pending appeal.

READ MORE →

The Limited Power and Authority of Bankruptcy Judges: Wellness International Network, Limited v. Sharif

Posted on

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wellness International Network, Limited v. Sharif, an appeal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. The ruling by the Supreme Court could have significant consequences for the constitutional power and authority of the bankruptcy courts and magistrates. Wellness stems from a dispute about the authority of bankruptcy judges to issue final judgments on claims against a bankruptcy estate that involve State-law rights. Bankruptcy judges routinely resolve State-law issues in their judgments. This appeal raises a question of constitutional law that could significantly alter the operations of bankruptcy courts and magistrates.

READ MORE →

Rep. Pierluisi Introduces Bankruptcy Code Amendment to Permit P.R. Municipalities to File Under Chapter 9

and Posted on

Just days after the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico struck down the Commonwealth’s efforts to pass its own insolvency regime, Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi introduced the “Puerto Rico Chapter 9 Uniformity Act of 2015” into the U.S. House of Representatives last week.  The bill, which is substantively similar to one introduced in 2014, would allow the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to authorize its insolvent public corporations to file a chapter 9 petition; they currently are not able to do so.  The bill, H.R. 870, has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for a hearing before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law on February 26th.  H.R. 870, 114th Cong. (1st Sess. 2015)

READ MORE →

What Happens in Delaware Does Not Always Stay in Delaware: Caesars Victorious in Venue Battle

Posted on

On Wednesday, January 28th, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware transferred venue for the involuntary bankruptcy of Caesars Entertainment Operating Company to Chicago, frustrating attempts by certain second lien noteholders to administer the $18.4 billion case in Delaware. The junior noteholders had filed an involuntary petition in Delaware against CEOC, three days before CEOC and 172 of its affiliates filed voluntary bankruptcy cases in the Bankruptcy Court in Chicago. As a result of the transfer of venue of the CEOC case, Judge Benjamin Goldgar of the Northern District of Illinois Bankruptcy Court will preside over all of the cases, including determining the validity of the involuntary case. In re Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., No. 15-10047 (KG), 10-11 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 2, 2015).

READ MORE →

Overview and Analysis of Select Provisions of the ABI Chapter 11 Reform Commission Final Report and Recommendations

Posted on

In December 2014, the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) issued its Final Report and Recommendations of the Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11. The Report is almost 400 pages long and contains more than 200 recommendations. Twenty-two Commissioners, including attorneys, academics, financial advisors and a former bankruptcy judge spent more than two years taking testimony from over 90 additional restructuring experts and considering the reports provided by 13 advisory committees, each comprised of 10-12 members from the bankruptcy bench, the bankruptcy bar, the financial community and academia. The Commission developed the report with goals including: reducing barriers to entry for debtors, facilitating more efficient resolution of disputed matters, enhancing debtors’ restructuring options and creating an alternative restructuring scheme for smaller businesses.

The recommendations do not constitute proposed legislation. Rather, the Report represents the opinion of the Commissioners and will spur debate. It ultimately could help lead to comprehensive overhaul of the almost 40-year old Bankruptcy Code. Recognizing that major bankruptcy reform generally takes years to wind its way through Congress, the Report implicitly acknowledges that 2018 is an appropriate target date for reform.

That does not mean the Report should be taken lightly, as it represents the consensus view of many well-regarded bankruptcy practitioners, academics and judges. At minimum, the Report will mark the commencement of a conversation about what the Commissioners view as much-needed reforms to the Bankruptcy Code. We also expect the report to receive the attention of judges and litigants in upcoming matters. Parties may look to the Commission’s interpretations of open legal questions as support for their assertions that certain interpretations represent the “better” argument or the “intended” result.

The Report covers nearly every aspect of the chapter 11 process with a multitude of suggested modifications to the Bankruptcy Code and bankruptcy jurisprudence. Below is our analysis of a number of the Commission’s most critical recommendations and of the potential impact of the proposed recommendations on the bankruptcy process.

To view the full article, please click here.