Workouts and Restructuring
Claims and Creditors
Avoidance and Recovery
|The South Bay Law Firm Law Blog highlights developing trends in bankruptcy law and practice. Our aim is to provide general commentary on this evolving practice specialty.|
Workouts and Restructuring
Claims and Creditors
Avoidance and Recovery
Claims And Litigation
Avoidance and Recovery
In a Case of First Impression at the Circuit Level, Ninth Circuit Holds an Insider Who Waives his Right to Indemnification from the Debtor is not a â€śCreditorâ€ť for Purposes of Preferential Transfers Under Sec. 547 of the Bankruptcy Code
Some of the week’s top bankruptcy and restructuring headlines:
And Still More:
When a retailerÂ becomes insolvent, suppliers or vendors who have recently provided goods on credit typicallyÂ have the ability toÂ assert “reclamation” rights for the return of those goods.Â Retailers may respond to theseÂ rights by seeking the protection the federal bankruptcy laws – and, in particular, the automatic stay.
When a retailer files for bankruptcy while holding goods which are subject to creditors’ “reclamation” rights, what should “reclamation” creditors do?
The Bankruptcy Code itself provides some protection for “reclamation” creditors by providing such creditors additional time in which to assert their claims, and by affording administrative priority for a certain portionÂ for such claims even when they are not formally asserted.
But is merely asserting a reclamation claim under the Bankruptcy Code sufficient to protect a supplier once a retailer is in bankruptcy?Â A recent appellate decision from Virginia’s Eastern District serves as a reminder that merely speaking up about a reclamation claim isn’t enough.
When Circuit City sought bankruptcy protection in 2009, Paramount Home Entertainment was stuck with the tab for more than $11 million in goods.Â Though it didn’t object to blanket liens on Circuit City’s merchandise which came with the retailer’s debtor-in-possession financing, and stood by quietly while Circuit City laterÂ liquidated its merchandise througÂ a going-out-of-business sale, Paramount did file a timely reclamation demand as required by the Bankruptcy Code.Â It also complied with what it understood to be the Bankruptcy Court’s orders regarding administrative procedures for processing its reclamation claims in Circuit City’s case.Â It was therefore unpleasantly surprised when Circuit City objected to Paramount’s reclamation claim – and when the Bankruptcy Court sustained that objection – on the grounds that Paramount hadn’t done enough to establish or preserve its reclamation rights.
Paramount appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, claiming that it complied with what it understood to have been the Bankruptcy Court’s administrative procedures for processing reclamation claims.Â Â Paramount argued that to have done more (i.e., to have sought relief from the automatic stay to take back its goods or commenced litigation to preserve its rights to the proceeds of such goods) would have disrupted Circuit City’s bankruptcy case.
In affirming the Bankruptcy Court, US District Judge James Spencer held that the Bankruptcy Code, while protecting a creditor’s reclamation rights, doesn’t impose them on the debtor.Â Instead, a reclaiming creditor must take further steps consistent with the Bankruptcy Code and state law to preserve the remedies which reclamation claims afford.Â Merely asserting a reclamation claim under the Bankruptcy Code – or under a Bankruptcy Court’s administrative procedure – isn’t enough:
Let the seller beware.
Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act provides â€śthe necessary authority to liquidate failing financial companies that pose a systemic risk to the financial stability of the United States in a manner that mitigates such risk and minimizes moral hazard.â€ť
Under this authority, the government would have had the requisite authority to structure a resolution of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. – which, as readers are aware, was one of the marquis bankruptcy filings of the 2008 – 2009 financial crisis.
Readers are also aware that Dodd-Frank is an significant piece of legislation, designed to implement extensive reforms to the banking industry.Â But would it have done any better job of resolving Lehman’s difficulties than did Lehman’s Chapter 11?
Predictably, the FDIC is convinced that a government rescue would have beenÂ more beneficialÂ – and in “The Orderly Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. under the Dodd-Frank Act” (forthcoming in Vol. 5 of the FDIC Quarterly), FDIC staff explain why this is so.
The 19-page paper boils down to the following comparison between Chapter 11 and a hypothetical resolution under Dodd-Frank:
By contrast, under Dodd-Frank:
Convinced?Â You decide.
A recent post over the July 4 holiday weekend offered a “30,000 foot view” of the 2008 world-wide financial meltdown and offered some broad observations about its causes – and remaining challenges to recovery.
From the Federal Bank of New York last week comes yet another broad overview – this one of the “shadow banking” system that has come to comprise a significant portion of the US’s (and the world’s) financial infrastructure – particularly that of the world financial markets.
In Shadow Banking, researchers Zoltan Pozsar, Tobias Adrian, Adam Ashcraft, and Hayley Boesky describe the financial components of thisÂ ad hocÂ banking system, its role in recent asset bubbles, its brittleness under stress, and the role of the Federal Reserve and other federal agencies in relieving that stress.
As described in the abstract:
Last weekendâ€™s July 4 holiday afforded members of the US business and restructuring community an opportunity for reflection on recent economic history.Â Those who took the opportunity to do so would have benefitted from â€śThe Great Recession of 2008-2009: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses,â€ť a recent discussion paper authored by Sher Verick and Iyanatul Islam and prepared under the auspices of the Institute for the Study of Labor (an independent think-tank associated with the University of Bonn, Germany).
According to the authorsâ€™ abstract:
“Starting in mid-2007, the global financial crisis quickly metamorphosed from the bursting of the housing bubble in the US to the worst recession the world has witnessed for over six decades.
Through an in-depth review of the crisis in terms of the causes, consequences and policy responses, [the] paper identifies four key messages. Firstly, contrary to widely-held perceptions during the boom years before the crisis, the paper underscores that the global economy was by no means as stable as suggested, while at the same time the majority of the worldâ€™s poor had benefited insufficiently from stronger economic growth.
Secondly, there were complex and interlinked factors behind the emergence of the crisis in 2007, namely loose monetary policy, global imbalances, misperception of risk and lax financial regulation.
Thirdly, beyond the aggregate picture of economic collapse and rising unemployment, this paper stresses that the impact of the crisis is rather diverse, reflecting differences in initial conditions, transmission channels and vulnerabilities of economies, along with the role of government policy in mitigating the downturn.
Fourthly, while the recovery phase has commenced, a number of risks remain that could derail improvements in economies and hinder efforts to ensure that the recovery is accompanied by job creation. These risks pertain in particular to the challenges of dealing with public debt and continuing global imbalances.”
Verick and Islamâ€™s work offers an excellent overview for anyone seeking to view economic events of the last two years through a â€świde-angleâ€ť lens.
A recent post by University of Illinois’ Professor Bob Lawless over at the always-stimulating “Credit Slips” blog focuses on an often-ignored, but important, corner of the Chapter 11 world: “Small Business” Chapter 11’s.Â Â Perhaps more accurately, the post focuses on Chapter 11’s that could be – but aren’t – formally designated as “Small Business” Chapter 11’s.
Prof. Lawless – whose research interests include empirical methodologies in legal studies – recently reviewed bankruptcy data from 2007, observing that of 2,299 chapter 11s filed in 2007 where the debtor (i) was not an individual; (ii) claimed predominately business debts; and (iii) scheduled total liabilities between $50,000 and $1,000,000, only 36.8% were designated “small business” bankruptcies.Â Anecdotally, Prof. Lawless refers to one of the cases he surveyed:Â a manufacturer that scheduled about $800,000 in debt and yet did not self-designate as a small-business debtor.
So why don’t more “small businesses” that commence Chapter 11 proceedings (many don’t, but this is a different issue) claim “small business” status?
The answers from practitioners – some of whom responded on the post, and others who voiced their views on a national list-serve also maintained by Prof. Lawless. – appear to coalesce around the following:
– Congress’ 2005 amendments impose additional filing requirements.Â Section 1116 requires the provision of “the most recent” balance sheet, profit-and-loss statement, and statement of cash flows, as well as the most recent Federal income tax return.Â One busy LA practitioner noted that he avoids the “Small Business” designation for this reason.
– The “small business” deadlines are too compressed.Â For example, the Code’s exclusivity provisions generally “caps” the time period in which a “Small Business” debtor may file a Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement at 300 days.Â This period can, of course,Â be extended within the original 300-day period if the debtor can demonstrate that plan confirmation within a “reasonable period” is “more likely than not.”Â But as a practical matter, the debtor has about 10 months to get a Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement filed.
– The combination of increased reporting and compressed deadlines puts any “small business” case on a hair-trigger under the expanded dismissal provisions of Section 1112.
– Some practitioners simply overlook the designation – which appears as a “check-the-box” on the face page of the petition’s official form.
– The concept of separate “small business” treatment emerges out of “local practices” implemented by bankruptcy judges for the purpose of streamlining their own dockets, butÂ which were neverÂ reallyÂ aÂ good idea from a practical perspective.
With the possible exception of attorney oversight, these all appear emininently practical reasons for staying away from “Small Business” Chapter 11’s.
But are they always?
It may be that â€śsmall businessâ€ť cases are perceived as problematic because, in fact, they cut against the grain of the traditional law firm business model.Â For example:
– Additional filing requirements.Â There may be circumstances where the clientâ€™s non-compliance with income tax filing requirements preclude any â€śsmall businessâ€ť self-designation.Â But most businesses â€“ even troubled ones â€“ can generate a very rudimentary set of financial statements.Â Even for clients who generally operate without them, it should be possible to generate such statements (albeit very cursory ones) at the initial client interview or very shortly thereafter.Â It’s worth noting that in Californiaâ€™s Central District, the additional â€śup-frontâ€ť filing requirements are offset, at least to some degree, by the dramatically reduced monthly reporting requirements with the US Trusteeâ€™s Office.Â In one â€śsmall businessâ€ť Chapter 11 case handled last year by South Bay Law Firm, the extremely relaxed monthly operating reporting requirements were one â€“ though certainly not the only â€“ reason a â€śsmall businessâ€ť filing was recommended for the client.
– Compressed deadlines.Â Part of South Bay Law Firm’s pre-petition planning involves a review of the clientâ€™s â€śexit strategy.â€ťÂ The fundamental question is: What is the clientâ€™s perceived business objective for the contemplated Chapter 11?Â If there isnâ€™t one,Â the client has more fundamental issues to consider â€“ and the conversation typically turns to a discussion of whether or not Chapter 11 makes business sense.Â If there is a business purpose for the contemplated Chapter 11, the business purpose and the “exit strategy”Â are typically reduced to an informal â€śPlan Term Sheetâ€ť which will, itself, become the nucleus of a combined Chapter 11 Plan-Disclosure Statement.Â At South Bay Law Firm, ourÂ experience is that the combined document is generally a bit easier and less time-consuming to draft than 2 separate documents.Â And with the â€śend gameâ€ť relatively well-defined at or near the outset of the case, getting to a successful exit just got a lot easier.Â ThisÂ is a factor critical to the speed that is so important to an economically successful Chapter 11.
– More reasons for dismissal.Â It is certainly true that Section 1112 imposes draconian consequences for failure to make required filings.Â But more often, the real challenge isnâ€™t Section 1112 â€“ or the US Trusteeâ€™s Office.Â Instead, itâ€™s helping the â€śsmall businessâ€ť Chapter 11 debtor focus on the administrative requirements of a Chapter 11 â€“ and in Californiaâ€™s Central District, there are many.Â To that end, the extra discipline required up-front for a â€śsmall businessâ€ť Chapter 11 is, in fact, an important test of the debtorâ€™s ability and willingness to get through the process with success.Â If the debtor canâ€™t even comply with a few additional filing requirements, it’s preferable to know right away that this debtor will have difficulty dealing with the myriad other contingencies that are certain to emerge in even a small Chapter 11 case.
– Itâ€™s all an impractical (though perhaps well-intended) judicial idea.Â For the reasons described above, the additional filing requirements and compressed deadlines of a “Small Business” Chapter 11 may, in fact, btÂ very practical â€“ at least in the larger scope of Chapter 11 economics.Â But even if the practicalities are questionable (practicality is, after all, in the eye of the practitioner),Â their result –Â docket efficiency and speed of administration â€“ are both great sources of judicial pleasure.Â The judicial clerkship experience resident at South Bay Law Firm attests that there really is noÂ better way to make friends with everyone behind the bench than making their job easier â€“ even if the job is just a tad bit harder on counsel’s end.Â We’ll gladly invest a little extra effort if it will mean the benefit of the doubt on a â€śjump ballâ€ť in front of the person wearing the black robe.
All of this may be very interesting, but how does it implicate the law firm business model?
Only this way: In an industry predominated by an â€śhourly feeâ€ť pricing model and on bringing as much business in the door as possible, the pressure on increased speed and discipline in a “small business” Chapter 11, requires more focus (and time) up-front, drives down administrative costs, demands an internal adherence to business process, and â€śweeds outâ€ť many candidates unsuitable for Chapter 11 â€“ â€śsmall businessâ€ť or otherwise.Â This, in turn, has the effect of making â€śsmall businessâ€ť Chapter 11â€™s generally quicker and cheaper â€“ and therefore potentially less profitable, at least from an â€śhourly feesâ€ť point of view.Â It also tends, at least initially,Â to restrict or limit overall client “volume.”
However, it also has the effect of creating a relatively well-defined â€śproductâ€ť which is potentially salable to a larger segment of troubled small businesses.Â And a larger overall market segment means a larger absolute number of â€śsmall businessâ€ť debtors who are possessed of the discipline and determination to reorganize their businesses successfully.
Several posts this year – theÂ most recent one here – have noted the general buyers’ market prevalent for strategic buyers shopping for distressed M&A.
A recent CFO.com article drives home the same point, but with more specificity . . . and an important caveat.Â Kate O’Sullivan’s piece entitled “Strategic Buyers Still in the Catbird Seat” observes that though overall M&A activity has been off by as much as 1/3 from 2008 levels, strategic buyers closed 94% of this year’s deals.Â Strategic buyers appear to have a continued advantage heading into 2010, and – as was the case this year – distressed assets are expected to comprise a significant portion of next year’s deal activity.
However, the current buyers’ market is not necessarily a bargain-hunters’ bonanza.Â Though a recent survey by the Association for Corporate Growth (ACG) and Thomson Reuters (summary available here, with statistical summaryÂ here) suggests a modest pick-up in transactional volume for 2010, O’Sullivan (citing the ACG data) notes continued constraints on credit and – perhaps more importantly – a fundamental disconnect over valuations buyers and sellers are willing to accept.
Either or both factors may hamper any significant increase in deal volume over 2009, but the ACG survey suggests that pricing multiples may be the sticking point for many deals.Â “[M]ultiples for middle-market transactions in general have fallen markedly, from a high of 10.1 times EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) in 2007 to 8.4 times EBITDA today, according to survey respondents. They may go still lower: 80% of respondents say they expect to pay no more than 5 times EBITDA for targets in the next six months.”
Not surprisingly, most sellers will be reluctant to sell at prices reflecting just half the multiple they could have obtained only 36 months ago: “37% of survey respondents cite valuation problems as the biggest hurdle for deals right now.Â ‘Sellers try to argue that you shouldn’t look at the current environment when valuing their company, that it’s just a bump in the road.Â But buyers are reluctant to buy that argument,’ says [ACG Chairman Den] White.”
What buyers will buy remains to be seen.Â Stay tuned for a fascinating 2010.
The purchase of debt on the cheap and subsequent use of activist litigation to seize control of a troubled company, or obtain other economic concessions from the debtor, is a common tactic in Chapter 11 practice.Â But it is not without risk – especially when the purchased debt comes with possible strings attached.
From New York’s Southern District last week, a cautionary tale of what can happen when an agressive distressed debt investor presses its luckÂ despite ambiguous lending documents:
ION Media Networks’ Pre-Petition Credit Arrangements and Pre-Arranged Chapter 11.
ION Media Networks Ltd. and its affiliates (“ION”) entered into a series of security agreements with its first- and second-priority lendersÂ during the “go-go” days of 2005.Â The documents included an intercreditor agreement setting forth the respective parties’ rights to ION’s assets.
By early 2009, ION was involved in restructuring discussions with the first-priority lien holders.Â Those discussions resulted in a Restructuring Support Agreement (“RSA”) by which ION conveyed 100% of ION’s reorganized stock to the first-priority lien holders upon confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan.Â In furtherance of the RSA, the ION companies filed jointly administered Chapter 11 cases in May 2009.
Enter Stage Right: Cyrus.
In the meantime, Cyrus Select Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. (“Cyrus”) purchased some of ION’s second-lien debt for pennies on the dollar.Â Using its newly acquired stake, Cyrus systematically attempted to interpose itself into ION’s pre-arranged reorganzation:Â It objected to DIP financing proposed by the first-priority lien holders, requested reconsideration of the DIP financing order so it could offer alternative financing on better terms, objected to ION’s disclosure statement, commenced its own adversary proceeding for a declaratory judgment, prosecuted a motion to withdraw the reference with respect to two adversary proceedings concerning ION’s FCC broadcast licenses, objected to confirmation, proposed amendments to the Plan to enable it more effectively to appeal adverse rulings of the Bankruptcy Court, and even filed supplemental papers in opposition to confirmation on the morning of the confirmation hearing.
Cyrus’ basic objective in this campaign was quite straightforward.Â It sought toÂ challenge the rights of ION’s first lien holders (and DIP lenders) to recover any of the enterprise value attributable to ION’s FCC broadcast licenses.Â Its ultimate objective was to leverage itself into economic concessions from ION and the first lien holdersÂ – and a hefty profit on its debt acquisition.
Cyrus picked its fight (i) while its positionÂ was “out of the money”; and (ii) in the face of an Intercreditor Agreement prohibiting Cyrus from “tak[ing] any action or vot[ing] [on a Chapter 11 plan] in any way . . . so as to contest (1) the validity or enforcement of any of the [first lien holders’] Security Documents … (2) the validity, priority, or enforceability of the [first lien holders’] Liens, mortgages, assignments, and security interests granted pursuant to the Security Documents … or (3) the relative rights and duties of the holders of the [first lien holders’] Secured Obligations . . .”).
Cyrus apparently decided to go forward because, in its view, ION’s valuable FCC broadcast licenses were not encumbered by the first-priority liens that were the subject of the Intercreditor Agreement.Â Â As a result, Cyrus claimed a right to pro rata distribution, along with the first-priority lien holders (who were themselves undersecured), in the proceeds of the purportedly unencumbered FCC licenses.Â Therefore, its objections, based on Cyrus’ position as an unsecured creditor, were appropriate.Â By the time the cases moved to confirmation, the ION debtors had commenced their own adversary proceeding to determine whether or not Cyrus’ objections wereÂ so justified.
Second-Guessing Cyrus’ Strategy.
Cyrus’ game of legal “chicken” was, in the words of New York Bankruptcy Judge James Peck, a “high risk strategy” designed to “gain negotiating leverage or obtain judicial rulings that will enable it to earn outsize returns on its bargain basement debt purchases at the expense of the [first lien holders].”
Unfortunately for Cyrus, its “high risk strategy” was not a winning one.
In a 30-page decision overruling Cyrus’ objections to ION’s Chapter 11 plan, Judge Peck appeared to have little quarrel with Cyrus’ economic objectives or with its activitst approach.Â Â But he was sharply critical of Cyrus’ apparent willingness to jump into the ION case without first obtaining a determination of its rights (or lack thereof) under the Intercreditor Agreement:
In contrast to Cyrus’ reading of the Intercreditor Agreement,Â Judge Peck read it to “expressly prohibit Cyrus from arguing that the FCC Licenses are unencumbered and that the [first lien holders’] claims . . . are therefore unsecured . . . .Â At bottom, the language of the Intercreditor Agreement demonstrates that [Cyrus’ predecessors]Â agreed to be ‘silent’ as to any dispute regarding the validity of liens granted by the Debtors in favor of the [first lien holders] and conclusively accepted their relative priorities regardless of whether a lien ever was properly granted in the FCC Licenses.”
Judge Peck further found that because Cyrus’ second-priority predecessor had agreed to an indisputable first-priority interest in favor of the first lien holders regarding any “Collateral,” this agreement also included any purported “Collateral” – and, therefore, prohibited Cyrus’ dispute of liens in the FCC broadcast licenses . . . even if such licenses couldn’t be directly encumbered:
Judge Peck acknowledged case law from outside New York’s Southern District that disfavors pre-petition intercreditor agreements which prohibit junior creditor voting on a Chapter 11 plan or a junior creditor’s appearance in the case as an unsecured creditor.Â But these features were not the ones at issue here: Cyrus was permitted to vote, and it could (presumably) make a generalÂ appearance as an unsecured creditor.Â However, it could not, in this capacity, object to the ION Chapter 11 plan.
Finally, Judge Peck noted that his own prior DIP Order acknowledged the first lien holders’ senior liens on “substantially all the [ION] Debtors’ assets.”Â As a result, Cyrus was independently prohibited from re-litigating this issue before him – and couldn’t have done so in any event because it had no standing to raise a proper objection.
Food for Thought.
The ION decision raises a number of questions – about the activist litigation tactics often used to extract the perceived value inherent in distressed debt acquisitions, and about the debt itself.
Was Cyrus overly aggressive in enforcing its purchased position?Â Judge Peck suggests, in a footnote, that Cyrus would have been free to raise objections to a settlement between the ION debtors and unsecured creditors by which the unsecured creditors were provided consideration sufficient to meet the “best interests of creditors” test required for confirmation.Â But wouldn’t any objection ultimately have raised the same issues as those put forward by Cyrus independently – i.e., the claimed lack of any direct encumbrance on ION’s FCC licenses, and the extra value available to unsecured creditors?
Or perhaps Cyrus wasn’t agressive enough?Â For all the paper it filed in the ION cases, shouldn’t Cyrus have concurrently given appropriate notice under its second-priority debt Indenture and commenced an adversary proceeding to determine its rights under the Intercreditor Agreement?
Finally, what of Cyrus’ purchased position?Â Was the Intercreditor Agreement truly “unambiguous” regarding Cyrus’ rights?Â Didn’t the “Collateral” described and the difficulty of directly encumbering FCC licenses create sufficient ambiguity to trigger an objection of the sort Cyrus offered?Â Are “purported liens” the same as “purported collateral“?Â And is a distinction between the two merely “technical”?
For distressed debt investors (and for lenders negotiating pre-petition intercreditor agreements), ION Media offers provoking food for thought.
But while you’re thinking . . .Â be sure to check your loan documents.