Lead into Gold? Sears' Possible Post-Petition Sale of Intracompany Debt

Sears is supposedly considering trying to raise liquidity through the post-petition sale of intracompany debt. The details of the debt and the proposed transaction aren't clear, but as a general matter, the post-petition sale of intracompany debt (or Treasury stock) seems problematic to me as with any lead into gold transaction.  Here's the issue:  if the debt is sold, is it still intracompany debt or does it become general unsecured debt? 

The viability of Sears' strategy depends on the answer to this question.  If it is still intracompany debt post-sale, it's not going to sell for very much; if it is general unsecured debt, it's much more valuable.  (This is putting aside the weird arbitrage with the CDS settlement auction market that gets warped by the CDS volume exceeding the reference debt volume.) 

In most bankruptcies, intracompany obligations between affiliated debtors are either subordinated or cancelled outright.  Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code compels this, but it's pretty standard. It tends to follow from a separate classification of intracompany obligations (again, not compelled by the Code) and from the difficulty in determining net intracompany obligations--deemed consolidation for voting and distribution is standard operating procedure in large bankruptcies. If the leaden intracompany claims can be transformed into golden general unsecured claims, it's a huge siphoning of value away from other general unsecured creditors.  General unsecured creditors are paid pro rata on their claims, so an increase in the size of the general unsecured claim pool dilutes recoveries on the debt.  

So would a sale of intracompany obligations transform them into arms' length obligations?

CLO Yawn

There's a big story in the NY Times about how the financial structures being used to finance many corporate loans—so-called Collateralized Loan Obligations or CLOs—look very similar to those used to finance mortgages during the housing bubble.  Yup.  That's true. CLOs are a securitization structure, like MBS.  (If you want to know more gory details, see here.)  But that's really where the similarities end.  While the financing transactions are similar, the asset class being securitized is fundamentally different in terms of the risk it presents, and that's what matters.  The financing channel might be more vulnerable to underpricing than other financing channels because of opacity and complexity, but is the underlying asset class that matters in terms of societal impact.  This is for (at least) four reasons. 

No comment

In this morning's email:

Moody's Investors Service downgraded its Probability of Default Rating (PDR) for American Tire Distributors, Inc. ... following the company's announcement that it had initiated Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings...

What Skews the Public-Private Balance in Corporate Bankruptcy Cases?

In a prior Credit Slips post, I shared a paper, Corporate Bankruptcy Hybridity, positing that bankruptcy should be conceptualized as a public-private partnership. The second section of Corporate Bankruptcy Hybridity identifies factors that have skewed the Bankruptcy Code's ideal balance between public and private interests and values. Preemptively I'll note it is not new to observe the increased privatization of bankruptcy and the qualitatively different nature of the oversight and ethics (see, e.g., Mechele Dickerson). More novel, I hope, is the articulation of a broader set of factors contributing to the skew. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

In the Zone: The Weinstein Co. Chapter 11 Hearings #9-13

Since my last Credit Slips post about The Weinstein Co. chapter 11, there have been five public hearings/status conferences (some of which were telephonic). Disparate observations from those hearings below.

Available at finer booksellers everywhere (and Amazon too!)

My new book is out – the Law of Failure.

The sub-title is "A Tour Through the Wilds of American Business Insolvency Law," which pretty much tells the whole story. I try to cover all business insolvency law – not just the Bankruptcy Code. State laws, and federal laws like Dodd-Frank's OLA are covered too. All in a concise little volume.

In my research I discovered that many states have specialized receivership and other insolvency laws for specific types of businesses. And some states – I'm looking at you New Hampshire – still have corporate "bankruptcy" statutes on the books from the days when there was no federal bankruptcy law, or (as was the case with the early Bankruptcy Act) the law did not extend to all types of businesses. Can any of these laws really work? It is hard to say, since the Supreme Court has not dealt with a bankruptcy preemption issue in a very long time.

I welcome discussion on this question, or the book in general, from Slips readers, either below or via email.

Corporate Bankruptcy as a Public-Private Partnership

I have just posted on the Social Science Research Network a forthcoming article called Corporate Bankruptcy Hybridity. Although the article has several intersecting objectives, today's post focuses on the first aim: conceptualizing corporate bankruptcy as a public-private partnership.  A public-private partnership, most plainly stated is "a legal hybrid which possesses some characteristics of a purely private corporation and others of a purely government.... however it is structured, it is formed to accomplish a public purpose."* As writings of scholars outside of bankruptcy make clear, the fact that a system relies in part on private actors and private funds does not absolve the system of its obligation to the public's broader constitutional, democratic, and welfare aims. In other words, even if a system is driven by a particular public purpose, other public objectives remain salient.

Reframing the system in this fashion explicitly rejects the common assumption that bankruptcy is best understood as a species of private law, as well as the belief that a workable theory requires that the bankruptcy system have only one public purpose.

In addition to enhancing scholarly debates, considering corporate bankruptcy a public-private partnership has real-world implications - most notably, helping reformers (statutory and otherwise) think creatively about the institutional actors and structures that can respond to identified problems, such as the problems carefully documented in the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11. The range of interventions described and prescribed in administrative law and related privatization scholarship is considerably broader than in reform projects such as the National Bankruptcy Review Commission or the ABI Chapter 11 Commission Report.

Of course, the article elaborates on these points, and I hope to highlight other objectives of Corporate Bankruptcy Hybridity in future posts. But in the meantime, I'd love it if you downloaded and read the article.

* This definition comes from an article published in 1969 by Robert Amdursky.

MoviePass Bankruptcy Watch

The financial travails of MoviePass and its parent company Helios & Matheson caught my eye today. I almost never go to see movies in theaters, so MoviePass was an unfamiliar business to me, but the basic idea is that the consumer pays an upfront subscription fee and then MoviePass provides an unlimited number of tickets for the consumer (although one per show, and more recently with various additional restrictions):  basically an all-you-can-eat buffet model applied to movies.  The buffet model requires the Jack Sprats of the world to subsidize their wives:  those who go to the counter once and get low-cost foods are subsidizing those who make multiple trips for the foie gras, etc.  The buffet model can work for a few reasons. First, there is a limit to how much anyone (except Joey Chestnut) can eat.  Second, people often go to restaurants in groups, which means that there will be some Jack Sprat wives in the mix.  Third, there are sales of other items (drinks, liquor) that can offset the buffet to the extent it's a loss leader.  And fourth, the buffet can be priced high enough that it won't lose too much money.

MoviePass doesn't seem to have many of these factors working in its favor.  People can watch a lot more movies in a month than they can make trips to a buffet table in an evening. There's going to be an adverse selection of heavy users among subscribers, and they don't bring along Jack Sprat wives--the extra business of friends who come to the theater doesn't go to MoviePass, but to the theaters.  And MoviePass doesn't have much in the way of other sale items to offset losses on tickets.  OK, so we've got a really bad business model that will only work if lots of people sign up, but don't actually go to the movies.  This strikes me as different from other subscription models, like gyms.  People are likely to overestimate their likelihood of going to the gym. My guess is that they are much less likely to overestimate how often they'll go to the movies. 

Well, this is all very interesting, but what does it have to do with Credit Slips?  Three things, I think, one dealing with payment systems and secured lending, and the other two dealing with bankruptcy, which seems to be where this is all headed (assuming that MoviePass is not run out of a bankruptcy remote entity). 

Jay Alix v. McKinsey Update

As my summer of poutine, donairs, and nippy waters winds down, a quick post to note that the long-expected motion to dismiss has been filed in the battle between the chapter 11 financial advisors. A McKinsey spokesperson also provided the following statement, which gives some insight into how they intend to respond to this case:

“Jay Alix has waged a years-long crusade against McKinsey & Company to stifle competition in the bankruptcy advisory market. His attempt to bootstrap a disclosure dispute into a RICO action is devoid of any legal basis and obviously intended to do nothing but inflict reputational damage. Courts have previously upheld the appropriateness of McKinsey’s disclosures. This lawsuit is just one more part of Mr. Alix’s anticompetitive campaign to push out of the market a competitor whose deep expertise and unmatched scale deliver superior bankruptcy outcomes.”

Silver Linings Playbook: The Weinstein Co. Chapter 11 Hearings #7 & #8

Since I last wrote on Credit Slips about The Weinstein Co. chapter 11, the sale of the company to Lantern Capital has  closed. Shortly after it closed, it was announced that Harvey Weinstein's brother Bob Weinstein was resigning from the TWC board of directors, along with several others. (If you read the investigative news reporting on TWC last fall through winter, you may be wondering why there hadn't been earlier board turnover. I have no good answer). Also of potential interest is that, after the closing of the sale, Lantern was immediately sued in California state court by another investment firm for breaching written and oral agreements connected with due diligence that allegedly gave Lantern a bidding advantage in buying TWC. 

The seventh public court hearing, on July 11, 2018, paved the way for the sale to close. It was then and there that Judge Sontchi, filling in for Judge Walrath, approved an amendment to the sale agreement reducing the sale price. The judge telegraphed early in hearing #7 that he viewed other pending objections (dealing with executory contracts and default cure amounts, which still remain pending) as collateral attacks on the prior sale order. The objection that would have prompted a bona fide evidentiary hearing, from the creditors' committee, had been settled.  Although hearing #8 on July 18 was extremely brief, it is clear there's much left to be worked out behind the scenes in this case - most notably, how to allocate the money.

Hurry Up and Wait: The Weinstein Co. Chapter 11 Hearing #6

All Credit Slips readers are old enough to remember when a quick going-concern sale of The Weinstein Company was said to be imperative. So much so that even the seemingly skeptical creditors' committee ultimately went along, thus making the request to sell the company to Lantern Capital uncontested.

On June 22, at its 6th hearing, and about 6 weeks after the court's sale approval, TWC essentially acknowledged it cannot close the sale to its stalking horse bidder on the terms requested and approved by the court, and certainly not by the end of June as represented at hearing #5. TWC therefore will be seeking court approval for Lantern to acquire the company for less money than the agreement and court order specified. By the creditors' committee's calculation, TWC is seeking a 11% reduction in the cash price, but that estimate is one of several points of contention between it and TWC. Given the dates and deadlines in various financing orders and deals, TWC said the issue absolutely positively must be resolved in early July - while the presiding judge is out of the country. The parties did not embrace the presiding judge's suggestion of a popular federal court tool: mediation by a fellow sitting judge. So a key outcome of the June 22 hearing is that a different Delaware bankruptcy judge will preside over a July 11 hearing on changing the TWC/Lantern deal. That judge already has held a quickly-scheduled telephonic status conference today, June 25 (see dockets ##1106, 1107).

As an outside observer not privy to the negotiations, I have no idea whether this deal will close. Perhaps due to lack of imagination, I have never understood how a potential purchaser could be deemed the highest and best bid for a company without a basic understanding what contracts and licenses were included. Meanwhile, especially if it was true that some competing bidders could not meet the deadline due to inability to get information from TWC in a timely fashion, significantly changing the deal without resuming some competitive process seems troubling.

No one at the June 22 hearing disputed that general unsecured creditors would be directly affected by TWC's request to change the terms of the sale. But the judge implied some skepticism by asking whether, say, "very secured" creditors have reason to care. The answer depends, it seems to me, on how  "very secured" is determined, due to allocation issues among entities in the TWC corporate family. If there was ever a case to highlight why one should resist the assertion of a single waterfall, it is this one.

 

 

The Weinstein Co. Chapter 11 Hearing #5

The fifth hearing in The Weinstein Co. chapter 11 occurred on June 5, 2018. The hearing included discussion about when the sale to Lantern Capital, approved by the court in early May, will actually close. Among other regulatory and transactional hurdles, TWC's lawyers mentioned that it still is not resolved which contracts will be included in the sale, but they hoped the sale would close within the month.

As for matters that resulted in a ruling, I'll briefly mention two.

1. Sustaining a United States Trustee objection, the court denied the motion for Harvey Weinstein's October 15, 2015 employment contract to be filed under seal, as the standards of 11 U.S.C. § 107 were not satisfied. That contract is now available on the bankruptcy court docket. The document was filed by the Geiss plaintiffs (stemming from alleged sexual misconduct, discussed below) but TWC was the party advocating for sealing.
2. The court approved the Geiss parties' motion to lift the automatic stay to permit the Geiss action to go forward against TWC, alongside other defendants, in the Southern District of New York, allowing liquidation of those claims. The SDNY district judge presiding over the Geiss action directed the plaintiffs to file the lift-stay motion; hearing transcripts illustrate his aim to minimize duplication of efforts. Part of TWC's argument against lifting the stay was the classic matter of distraction. Applying the relevant case law to the facts, the court observed that while closing the sale was a complicated matter, TWC was neither reorganizing in a traditional sense or seeking to stabilize its operations at this time. And, as in other cases, the distraction argument may be weakened when separate lawyers are handling the non-bankruptcy litigation. Seyfarth Shaw was representing TWC in the Geiss litigation, at least prior to the bankruptcy (leading the firm to successfully seek payment of its prepetition claim out of an insurance policy, over the creditor committee's objection - seek dkt #1000).

Speaking of professionals, initial interim fee applications for TWC's professionals for March 19-April 30, 2018 were not on the June 5 agenda, but are on the court docket. TWC has NY counsel and local counsel. Just to give you a sense, Cravath's fee application includes over 3,200 hours billed by 27 attorneys (dkt #929). Richards, Layton & Finger's fee application includes over 1,200 hours billed by 16 attorneys (dkt #932). Plus paraprofessionals at these two firms. Billing separately, of course, are FTI Consulting (dkt #870) and Moelis, the investment banker (dkt #946).

The next hearing in TWC's bankruptcy is scheduled for June 22, 2018. The SDNY Geiss action, in the motion to dismiss phase, is also very much worth watching.

Hearing #4 was held in The Weinstein Co. bankruptcy and you won't believe what happened next

Actually, if you are in and of the corporate restructuring world, you will believe what happened next. Major objections were were resolved by the parties, and the court approved the sale of The Weinstein Co. to Lantern Capital.

Resolving objections without litigation is perceived positively in bankruptcy-land, not to mention in federal courts more generally. Some cash proceeds of the sale will be held back for the next phases of the case, and that is an important development. What, then, makes the situation seem less than satisfying, at least to this outside observer?

Thoughts: initial thoughts on the Alix-McKinsey lawsuit

The compliant alleges some damming stuff. McKinsey brushes it all off as an anti-competitive ploy. It seems to me that the biggest risk to McKinsey is that the failure to disclose can itself be the basis for an order to disgorge fees.

Even if McKinsey might have been retained in these cases if it had made disclosure up front – I don't necessarily agree with the Alix complaint that the alleged connections would have been, in all cases, fatal to their retention – failure to disclose is itself a serious problem. Bankruptcy professionals always have to disclose more than what is required by section 327's adverse interest/disinterested standard, because ultimately what counts as a problem for section 327 purposes is a question for the court, not the professional, to decide.

And I wonder why the courts approved McKinsey's retention applications in the first place. And where was the US Trustee? It is alleged that many of their retention applications stated that McKinsey had no relevant conflicts to disclose.  As in none. For a company of the size and importance of McKinsey, that frankly is not plausible. 

The allegations in paragraphs 120 to 122, which I have cut out in the image, are deeply troubling. In short, Jay Alix alleges that McKinsey recommended law firms to clients, and the law firms in turn recommended McKinsey for retention in the case. Not only might this be illegal, as Alix says, but this sort of relationship would have to be disclosed in the McKinsey (and law firms) retention applications even if not illegal.

Battle of Giants

I have been studying chapter 11 professionals since before the turn of the century, but today we have a first. Jay Alix, as assignee of AlixPartners LLP, has filed a 150 page complaint against McKinsey & Co., Inc. and others, alleging RICO violations in connection with McKinsey's alleged violations of section 327 and rule 2014.  This apparently comes out of the Wall Street Journal's report last week that McKinsey was suspiciously light and vague in its disclosures in bankruptcy court, as compared with other, similar professionals.

The alleged conspiracy goes back to cases during my time in practice – that is, long, long ago. It will be interesting to watch this develop.

Loans and Liens: The Weinstein Company Chapter 11 Hearing #3

The third hearing in the The Weinstein Company chapter 11 took place on April 19, 2018 (prior 2 hearings here and here). The hearing focused on final court approval of a $25 million loan to fund the debtor during its chapter 11 (or, really, until a standalone 363 sale) ("DIP loan"). Apparently a competing offer for the DIP loan discussed at Hearing #1 never fully materialized. Prior to the chapter 11 petition, TWC had no single lender/syndicate claiming a so-called blanket lien on substantially all assets (the lender leading the now-approved DIP loan had a prepetition security interest in movie distribution rights held by TWC Domestic, and lenders with prepetition security interests in other assets also are participating in the DIP loan). As indicated in the visual accompanying this post, the DIP financing order states that TWC seeks to grant its DIP lenders a security interest in nearly all property. There are some important exclusions from the collateral package, however, including "claims arising out of or related to sexual misconduct or harassment or employment practices." 

Page 42 of the DIP financing order gives the unsecured creditors committee only until April 27 to investigate validity, perfection, and enforceability of various prepetition liens, although that date can be extended "for cause." As is typical in such agreements these days, TWC stipulated that it will not challenge prepetition loans made by the postpetition lenders. The order and agreement also require immediate payout of the DIP loan from sale proceeds (pp 55 & 138 of docket #267). If I'm reading the DIP lending agreement correctly, it also gives certain prepetition lenders the right to be paid immediately out of sale proceeds (p138 of docket #267). For reasons Credit Slips readers have heard many times before, I don't understand why paying prepetition debts at that juncture is in the best interest of the bankruptcy estate.

Meanwhile, Peg Brickley and Jonathan Randles of The Wall Street Journal have reported three TWC executives "took home more than $12 million in pay, loans, reimbursements" in the year before the bankruptcy, including after sexual misconduct allegations became public. This reporting comes from the schedules and statements of financial affairs filed just a few days ago.

Other updates:

"Drinking water from a fire hose:" The Weinstein Company Chapter 11 Hearing #2

Nestled in a review of an album by Spinal Tap bassist Derek Smalls (a/k/a Harry Shearer), the April 10 edition of Variety magazine published a notice of sale of The Weinstein Company. The notice includes a bid deadline of April 30, a sale hearing on May 8, and the soothing assurance to bidders that a buyer would incur "NO SUCCESSOR LIABILITY" (bolded and all-caps) for the heinous acts TWC apparently tolerated and facilitated over many years. The notice anticipates that a buyer might agree to remain liable for some TWC obligations, however, perhaps contemplating valuable licensing contracts.

The Variety notice is a consequence of the second TWC hearing on April 6 (for the first hearing, see here). By the end, objections to the bidding procedures order had been resolved, resulting in docket #190, the order approving the procedures, including a $9.3 million breakup fee and escalating expense reimbursement for the stalking horse bidder if the sale is delayed. The number of times sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape were mentioned at the hearing: zero.

Counsel to the newly-appointed five-member creditors' committee told the court that getting up to speed in this case (no pun intended) was "drinking water from a fire hose." And a battle is brewing over whether bids should be allocated among the various asset categories (again, given the stated complexity) - something the stalking horse bidder seems to resist. Meanwhile, at least one counterparty to a licensing agreement asserts that its contract was rescinded prior to the filing. Assuming it loses that fight, the party worries it will have insufficient time to consider whether the asset buyer is providing adequate assurance of future performance.

This case invites the caustic lament, "if only the Bankruptcy Code drafters had established a fair and transparent process to deal with all of these issues!" When Harry Shearer decides to send his imaginary-band bassist into a quiet retirement, maybe he will make a film about chapter 11. After all, fairness rocks.

 

Was Charleston Gazette-Mail a good case for an Ice Cube Bond?

Based only this news report, the answer appears to be yes - an Ice Cube Bond would have honored the claimants' need for speed without allowing them to shift all the risk to the bankruptcy estate. The news article indicates that sale proponents referred to the holdback request as a "Hail Mary." In the foundational Lionel case, the dissenting Second Circuit judge used that characterization for a request to reverse the sale order, not to hold back proceeds. An Ice Cube Bond arguably reduces the possibility of Hail Mary arguments because it allows analysis of entitlements to be determined at a less pressured pace.

 

H/T Ted Janger

 

Notes on Complexity: The Weinstein Company Chapter 11 Hearing #1

Some rarely-heard terms at The Weinstein Company's March 20 chapter 11 first-day hearing: sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape.

A more common utterance among TWC representatives: complex. The industry, the capital structure, the lending arrangements. All complex. Complex complex complex complex complex.

Part of the complexity, TWC said, comes from the fact that some collateral is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code while other collateral (certain intellectual property) is governed by other law. Yes - secured transactions professors keep saying this mixture is difficult to handle especially at the remedial/recovery stage. Another part of the complexity, according to TWC, is that the property interests have been sliced and diced into... hold on, this sounds familiar. 

What if anything is hiding behind this complexity? If TWC and the sale proponents get their way, the mystery likely will be buried.  The company and other proponent of a quick sale (which includes the sale of avoidance actions) says this sale needs to be done ASAP. 

TWC does not look like a melting ice cube now. It melted in the fall of 2017. Claimants need as much, if not more, protection in manufactured ice cube cases as in real ones, especially if the capital structure is so, well, complex. Complexity and speed are not the best of friends. If claimants are going to be denied full process, quick sale proponents need to post an Ice Cube Bond. Otherwise, a sale of TWC should happen through a plan, with all of the constitutional and statutory hurdles that were supposed to be necessary for the extraordinary exercise of federal court power that TWC seeks.

TWC's representatives also emphasized how business judgment should be respected. From the outside, it looks like TWC terminated Harvey Weinstein only when the news media blew their cover on the track record of heinous allegations. Sure, there is a new CRO, but are all who were complicit in the cover up really out of the picture now? 

A lawyer for the motion picture guilds said at the hearing that the guilds have had "difficulty" with the debtor pre-bankruptcy, and that the case calls for "adult supervision."  Another objector (docket #68)  said at the hearing that it heard from third parties that TWC had been "flagrantly" breaching agreements and misdirecting payment - a state of affairs feared to be the tip of the iceberg, but there had not yet been time to do a full investigation. 

A particularly interesting portion of the hearing involved debtor-in-possession financing. Among other reasons, TWC said it preferred to allow an existing lender to offer the DIP financing because that lender understood the complexity of the business and collateral package. Is chapter 11 practice now at a place where a DIP argues with a straight face that, for continuity purposes, it is better off borrowing money at higher interest rates and higher fees, from an existing lender with incentives that unlikely to align with the best interests of the estate overall? That did not go unchallenged, however. In addition to allowing another potential lender to be heard, the court asked a series of reasonable questions that indicated concerns about the cost of the proposed deal for the bankruptcy estate, and then took a brief recess. Then the proposed lender reported to the court the fees would be reduced.  The court approved the financing on an interim basis to avoid irreparable harm but will be looking at this issue fresh when TWC seeks the final order for financing.

The U.S. Trustee is having a creditors committee formation meeting this week. That committee has a lot to investigate.

The TWC enterprise might be complex. But that's not what this case is about.

 

 

 

 

 

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act

Or EGRRCPA, for short. That is the official name of S. 2155, a bill which seems to be tearing Senate Democrats apart. Republicans are uniformly in favor of the bill, which Bloomberg describes as "another faulty bank-reform bill." Some Democrats see it as needed regulatory relief for small banks, while others, including the one who used to blog here, see S. 2155 as a rollback of keys parts of Dodd-Frank for big banks that remain too big to fail.

It is both. Indeed, if the bill were stripped of its title IV, I think most people could live with it. But title IV is a doozy.  

Most notably, it raises the threshold for additional regulation under Dodd-Frank from $50 billion in assets to $250 billion. Banks with more than $50 billion in assets are not community banks.

The banks in the zone of deregulation include State Street, SunTrust, Fifth Third, Citizens, and other banks of this ilk. In short, with the possible exception of State Street, this is not a deregulatory gift to "Wall Street," but rather to the next rung of banks, all of which experienced extreme troubles in 2008-2009, and all of which participated in TARP.

My prime concern – given my area of study – is that these banks will no longer be required to prepare "living wills." That is, they will not have to work with regulators on resolution plans.

How then do we expect to use Dodd-Frank's orderly liquidation authority if they fail? It would be impossible without advanced planning. Same for the misguided attempts at "chapter 14." I have real doubts about the wisdom of "bankruptcy for banks," but if it is ever to work, it will require lots of advanced planning (and luck).

And we can't use the normal FDIC approach of finding another, bigger bank to take them over, because that would simply create another colossus, like Wells Fargo. Certainly we don't want that.

Maybe a bailout then? Is that the "new" plan?

Chapter 11 Locale

For nearly two decades, the fact that many really large chapter 11 cases file in two districts has been a point of controversy.  On the one hand, the present system makes some sense from the perspective of debtor’s attorneys, and many DIP lenders, who value the experience and wisdom of the judges in these jurisdictions and the predictability that filing therein brings.  On the other hand, for those not at the core of the present system, it reeks of an inside game that is opaque to those on the outside.  And it is not clear the judges outside the two districts could not handle a big case; indeed, most could.

Where big chapter 11 cases should file is an issue again, at least among bankruptcy folks, given the possibility that the pending Cornyn-Warren venue bill might pass as part of some bigger piece of legislation, perhaps the pending S. 2155 (whose Title IV is so misguided it certainly warrants a separate post).

I have long been frustrated by the discussion of chapter 11 venue.  On the one hand, the present system has developed largely by accident, with little thought for the broader policy implications.  On the other, there is certainly some merit in concentrating economically important cases before judges who are well-versed in the issues such cases present.  The issue calls for careful study, but, as with most political issues these days, we are instead presented with a binary choice.

I have often contemplated concentrating the biggest chapter 11 cases among a group of bankruptcy judges, trained in complexities of multi-state or even global businesses.  A small panel of such judges could be formed in various regions around the country, such that the parties would never have to travel further than to a neighboring state for proceedings.  Geographically larger states – i.e., California and Texas – might comprise regions all by themselves.

Such an approach would ensure that cases would capture some of the benefits of the present system, without the drawbacks of having a Seattle-based company file its bankruptcy case on the East Coast.  Comments are open, what do readers think about developing a nationwide group of "big case" judges?

Merit Mgmt. Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc.

The Supreme Court weighed in today on one of the the most important circuit splits in the bankruptcy world, namely the scope of one of the section 546(e) safe harbors from avoidance actions in bankruptcy.  Section 546(e) has two safe harbors, one for "settlement payments" and the other for transfers "made by or to (or for the benefit of) a ... financial institution ... in connection with a securities contract … commodity contract… or forward contract…”. This latter safe harbor had been read (ridiculously) broadly by some of the courts of appeals, as every non-cash transaction has to go through some sort of financial institution.  Specifically, imagine a transaction in which funds are moving from A to D, but go through intermediary financial institutions B and C:  A-->B-->C-->D.  Can D shelter in the fact that the transfer went through financial institutions B and C?  

The Supreme Court unanimously said no, and I think they clearly got the right result, although I fear the methodology the court used may ultimately be unhelpful for those who think that fraudulent transfer law has an important role to play in policing the fairness of financial markets and preventing against excessively risky heads-I-win, tails-you-lose gambles.  

Bankruptcy Venue Reform -- Yes, Again, But Maybe This Is the Time?

As many Credit Slips readers will know, chapter 11 venue reform has been an issue for decades. As corporate filers have flocked to the Southern District of New York and the District of Delaware, the real reason some observers say is that these courts favor corporate managers, dominant secured lenders, bankruptcy attorneys, or a combination of all of them. Regardless of the merits of these claims, it certainly undermines respect for the rule of law when faraway federal courts decide issues affecting local interests. A great example comes from right here in Champaign, Illinois, where local company Hobbico has recently filed chapter 11. The company, a large distributor of radio-control models and other hobby products, has more than $100 million in debt. The company has over 300 employees in the Champaign area who own the company through an employee stock ownership plan. Yet, the company's fortunes are now in the hands of a Delaware bankruptcy court.

Other (Non-Religious) Non-Profit Organizations Also File Bankruptcy

Yesterday I posted about the number of religious organizations that filed chapter 11 between 2006 and 2017, and how their filings track fluctuations in consumer bankruptcy filings during those years. Non-religious non-profit organizations also file chapter 11, but in fewer numbers than religious organizations. As shown in this graph, between 2006 and 2017, a mean of 44 other non-profits filed chapter 11 per year (note: I count jointly-administered cases as one case).

 In comparison, a mean of 79 religious organizations filed chapter 11 per year between 2006 and 2017. Over these twelve years, 36% of all chapter 11 cases filed by non-profit organizations were filed by non-religious non-profits.

So, Is the High Yield Market Efficient?

My inbox is being bombarded with law firm commentary on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision that cramdown interest rates should be determined by "market rates," rather than by formula, when the relevant debt market is efficient. A good summary of the commentary can be found over at the Harvard Bankruptcy Roundtable.

And then we have a Bloomberg story this morning, filled with hand wringing about what might happen if a particular mutual fund were to sell a particular bond position – where the fund owns less than 20% of the issue. Nevertheless, the suggestion is that such a sale could have big, market moving effects. That does not sound like a very efficient market.

Given that the high yield market is apt to be the most relevant market to a chapter 11 case, what precisely, then, has the Court of Appeals achieved?

Rights of Secured Creditors in Chapter 11: New Paper

Ted Janger and I have posted a paper of interest to Credit Slips readers called Tracing Equity. We still have time to integrate feedback, so please download it and let us know what you think.

As the image accompanying this post suggests, the project was inspired in part by recommendations of the American Bankruptcy Institute's Chapter 11 Commission. Discussion of those proposals starts on page 51 of the PDF.

One of the main insights of Tracing Equity is that both Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code and the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between (1) lien-based priority over specific assets and their identifiable proceeds, and (2) unsecured claims against the residual value of the firm. By our reasoning, even attempts to obtain blanket security interests do not give secured lenders an entitlement to the going-concern and other bankruptcy-created value of a company in chapter 11. We explain why our read of the law is normatively preferable and, indeed, is baked into corporate and commercial law more generally--part of a large family of rules that guard against undercapitalization and judgment proofing.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

 

Toys "Я" US's Curious Bankruptcy Venue

Toys "R" Us filed for bankruptcy with impeccable timing--the very morning I was teaching my Financial Restructuring class about the commencement of the bankruptcy process. I decided to take my class through the TRU petition on PACER. Some 19 TRU entities filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond division. Only one of those 19 entities is a Virginia entity. I don't know the domicile of the other entities, but TRU is headquartered in New Jersey, and I'd be shocked if there wasn't at least one Delaware entity in the family.  

This left me puzzled. It would seem that TRU likely had at least two respected venues for large Chapter 11s:  District of New Jersey, and District of Delaware. Yet TRU chose to file in Virginia, and in Richmond to boot. 

After a few minutes of sleuthing on the LoPucki-UCLA WebBRD, I discovered that TRU's counsel, Kirkland & Ellis seems to have a cottage industry of Chapter 11 filings in Richmond:  5 cases in recent years. Again, this is puzzling. Richmond is hardly a convenient venue for K&E (with a bankruptcy practice based in Chicago and NY), nor is it a convenient venue for really anyone else--all of the financial creditors are likely to be NY-based, while the suppliers are from all over.  Nor is there obviously better law in the 4th Circuit for a retail bankruptcy (as far as I know, and if there is, it doesn't explain why Richmond rather than Alexandria). Are EDVA judges more lenient on fee applications or less likely to push back against overreaching DIP financing agreements? I don't know, but clearly there's something on tap in Richmond that K&E likes.  

Now here's what else I discovered--there are only two bankruptcy judges in Richmond, and K&E seems to keep getting the same one for its cases. I don't know how cases are assigned in EDVA, but it seems that K&E has discovered a sort of one-judge venue, much like Reno, NV. And what lawyer wouldn't want to pick the judge?  

I'm curious for others' thoughts.  I'd like to think that the chances of bankruptcy venue reform have increased with the departure of Joe Biden from the Senate (or Naval Observatory), not that we're likely to see any legislative action in the foreseeable future.  

WARN Act Claims after Spokeo v. Robins

I'm musing out loud here, but does the Supreme Court's holding in Spokeo v. Robins—that a suit claiming statutory damages without alleging actual damages lacks Article III standing—impact WARN Act claims in bankruptcy? The WARN Act is a labor law that requires advance notice of certain plant closings--basically advance notice of mass layoffs. Failure to provide such notice results in statutory damages, even though there might not be any actual damages. For example, imagine that a debtor provided notice of a plant closing but not sufficiently in advance--it was one day too late. Where's the harm?  I think under Spokeo there wouldn't Article III standing for a suit seeking damages. If so, that's a nice boon to unsecured creditors because WARN Act claims are going to be priority claims that get paid ahead of them. Going foward, I would think that Official Committees of Unsecured Creditors should be challenging WARN Act claims. Thoughts?    

A Quiet Revolution in Pension Reform

A historic vote was announced overnight that signals a new era for large pension reform. As is often the case, "reform" here means that ordinary, hard-working folks will suffer a significant amount of pain as big companies are relieved of some liabilities, but the hope is it will be less painful than the alternative. The revolution began in 2014, when Congress adopted the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act (MPRA).  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation guarantees a portion of the benefits due to participants in pension plans that have become insolvent, but as a result, it is also facing a nearly $100 million shortfall in its ability to cover the projected volume of its existing guarantees. Congress attempted to avert disaster by allowing particularly large and especially distressed pension funds to slash benefits themselves in order to maintain solvency. Ordinarily, this extraordinary action would, if possible at all, require an insolvency filing and court oversight of some kind, but the MPRA allows plans who aggregate benefits for many companies (multiemployer plans) to apply to the Treasury Department for administrative permission to abrogate their pension agreements and cut benefits with no court filing or general reorganization proceeding. There are, of course, restrictions on the level of distress required for such a move and the degree of proposed cuts, but the MPRA allows large pension funds to reduce the pension benefits of thousands of beneficiaries with simple administrative approval. The plan participants get a vote on such proposals, but the law builds in a presumption: Treasury-approved cuts go into effect unless a majority of plan beneficiaries votes to reject the cuts.

Old-Fashioned Insolvency Policy in India

It seems to me a sign of serious regulatory dysfunction when a government expressly uses bankruptcy law as a means of collection, rather than rescue or at least collective redress, with an aim to treating economic stagnation. I've seen several stories recently like this one, touting the new Indian insolvency law and government regulators' strategy of putting pressure on banks to use involuntary insolvency (creditors' petitions) to clean up the NPL problems of a series of major industrial firms. The notion that insolvency law is about collecting NPLs seems at best anachronistic, and likely at least a sign of major dysfunction in other law or policy.

The right way for one lender (including the government tax collector) to collect one defaulted loan is to engage an ordinary collections process (judgment enforcement)--which itself might well result in the sale of the company, as envisioned in the story linked above. Creditor-initiated bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings should be the nuclear option, engaged only when creditors are worried that the debtor's assets will be dissipated by other enforcing creditors before the later-in-time ones can reach the ordinary enforcement stage. Such cases should be rare. The primary users of modern insolvency law should be debtors responding to positive incentives to seek an orderly opportunity for a global renegotiation of their debts, or an orderly way for the governors of those companies to liquidate and redeploy the assets of their companies more effectively--avoiding in the process a protracted battle about their own liabilities as personal guarantors and/or as directors liable for "insolvent trading." 

The subtext of the stories I've seen about the new Indian insolvency law seem to be (1) it does not provide an adequate incentive for debtor-companies to seek either rehabilitation or orderly liquidation when they realize they're in obvious financial distress, (2) the ordinary collections apparatus in India must be totally dysfunctional if banks have no incentive to engage it to deal with their NPLs, (3) the new insolvency law also provides an inadequate incentive for creditors to engage it to seek collective redress, since the government has to put pressure on banks to do so, and (4) all of the work on proper, modern insolvency policy in recent years by UNCITRAL, the IMF and World Bank, and many, many others has been lost on Indian regulators. Especially in developing nations like India and South Africa, the battle over the appropriate, modern role of insolvency law as debtor-initiated rescue or exit, as opposed to old-fashioned creditor-initiated collections, continues to rage.

 

Trump's Bank Regulators: More Swamp Creatures

Following his appointment of Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary, the President has nominated Joseph Otting, former CEO of OneWest Bank, to be the chief federal bank regulator as head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The OCC is the bank cop for the nation's largest banks. The OCC determines whether banks are taking too many risks with depositor and taxpayer money, and is charged with preventing failures of banks that are too big too fail, in other words, with preventing the next financial crisis.

OneWest Bank was founded by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin in 2009  primarily to acquire, and foreclose, thousands of troubled mortgage loans made by the failed subprime lender IndyMac. Otting served as CEO of OneWest from 2010 until 2015. The President's two leading bank regulators made considerable fortunes by running this very unusual bank, relying on some big-time government funding.

IndyMac had specialized in "nonprime" mortgages, including no-doc interest-only loans and other toxic products, that failed massively in the foreclosure crisis. IndyMac was the first large federally-regulated bank to fail and be bailed out by the FDIC in 2008.

The California Reinvestment Coalition determined from several Freedom of Information Act requests that the FDIC will pay OneWest $2.4 billion for foreclosure losses on the IndyMac loans. Housing counselors in California identified OneWest as one of the most ruthless and difficult banks to deal with in trying to negotiate foreclosure alternatives on behalf of homeowners. In 2011 OneWest signed a consent decree with the federal banking agencies, neither admitting nor denying the agency's findings that OneWest had routinely falsified court documents in foreclosure cases, the practice known as robosigning. In his Senate confirmation hearing last week, Otting insisted that the regulators' findings of OneWest misconduct were a "false narrative." False or not, OneWest foreclosures, and its deal with the FDIC, do seem to have proven very profitable. Bloomberg estimates that Mnuchin made $200 million from the sale of OneWest in 2015, and Otting earned about $25 million in compensation and severance in his final year at OneWest.

OneWest was acquired by CIT group, one of the few banks that did not repay the taxpayers for their 2008 TARP bailout--the bank filed bankruptcy in 2009, stiffing the taxpayers for $2.3 billion. The bankruptcy reorganization and the shedding of CIT's debt allowed CIT to return to profitability and eventually fund its purchase of OneWest from Mnuchin and his partners.

photo credit Walt Mancin Pasadena Star-News

I Also Do Weddings

Blog administrator's note: I hope Stephen does not get mad at me, but I have moved the video "below the fold" as it wants to autoplay whenever Credit Slips loads. Click on the "continue reading" link to see a CBS video featuring Stephen and problems from the Alfred Angelo bankruptcy with women who may not get their wedding dresses.

Thoughts and Frustrations – Jevic

Over at Dealb%k.

Jevic Commentary

Just a cross-posting note: Jonathan Lipson and I comment on the U.S. Supreme Court's Jevic decision at the Harvard Law School Corporate Bankruptcy Roundtable.

Exchange Offers and Hardball

Over at Dealb%k.  (BTW, I don't pick the pictures).

Jevic

Third Circuit is reversed. Opinion is here.

Everything You Wanted to Know About Bond Workouts But Were Afraid to Ask

There's a great new paper available on out-of-court restructuring and the Trust Indenture Act.   The New Bond Workouts is up on SSRN.  From the abstract it sounds pretty darn amazing—a new, empirically based analysis of bond restructurings that rediscovers a long-forgotten intercreditor duty of good faith: 

Marblegate and a Dose of Reality for the Trust Indenture Act

The Second Circuit on Tuesday released its long-awaited opinion on the Trust Indenture Act, Marblegate v. EDMC. Several of us Slipsters have been discussing the case behind the scenes, and others will have (more intelligent) things to say about the opinion than I, but I thought I'd introduce the blockbuster case to get us rolling.

Long story short, the TIA essentially prohibits out-of-court workouts over the objection of any noteholder whose notes (debt securities) are part of the issuance qualified under the TIA. Section 316(b) says "the right of any holder of an indenture security to receive payment ... or to institute suit for the enforcement of any such payment ... shall not be impaired or affected without the consent of such holder." (emphasis added). The case was about what it means to "impair or affect" the "right" to get paid under indentured notes. The creative argument advanced by Marblegate was that lots of activities having nothing to do with changing the notes or their terms can "impair or affect" its right to get paid, and EDMC crossed the line. EDMC had done a creative end-run around the TIA by suffering its secured creditors to foreclose their (undisputed) security interests in all of its assets and then resell those assets to a newly created subsidiary of EDMC, scrubbing the former unsecured claims from those assets and leaving Marblegate and other noteholders with a claim against an empty shell. This was the second option in a Hobson's choice presented to noteholders; the first was to accept a 67% haircut and participate in a global workout with the secured creditors. Nearly 100% of the noteholders chose this option; Marblegate chose to play chicken and see if the courts would allow EDMC and its secured creditors to wipe out Marblegate's practical ability to enforce its claim by leaving an empty shell as the only obligor on Marblegate's unsecured debt after senior secured claimants exercised their superior rights in every scrap of available value. The contractual terms of Marblegate's right to collect were unchanged, but the practical ability of Marblegate to make anything of this right was clearly "impaired and affected," Marblegate argued.

Jevic and the Supremes

My own conflicted thoughts on Jevic, over at Dealb%k.

A Note On Setoff and Recoupment

For Slips readers that might not otherwise see it, I wanted to highlight this post on the Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog, about a recent state supreme court decision on the distinction between setoff and recoupment, and the applicability of the statute of limitations to the former.

Do the Distressed Debt Traders Know About This?

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 23-46:  

It shall be unlawful for any individual, corporation, or firm or other association of persons, to solicit of any creditor any claim of such creditor in order that such individual, corporation, firm or association may represent such creditor or present or vote such claim, in any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding, or in any action or proceeding for or growing out of the appointment of a receiver, or in any matter involving an assignment for the benefit of creditors.

Venezuela

John Dizard has a useful, and clearly written, piece on the lay of the land in this morning's FT. What puzzles me is why PDVSA, the national oil company,  has not done a UK scheme of arrangement or a US prepack to exchange the bonds, instead of messing around with an exchange offer. But the entire situation is rather opaque.

What is the point of that?

Perhaps as a result of GM, I've been thinking about notice issues in connection with insolvency. Thus, I was a bit surprised to see these three notices, all related to Lehman cases pending in Hong Kong (and schemes of arrangement in those cases), which appeared in this morning's Financial Times.

Note that in the title the notice is addressed to the "Scheme Creditors," as "defined below." Yet below, we are told that Scheme Creditors are "as defined in the Scheme."  So unless you are an insolvency fanatic – I plead guilty – and going to run down the documents and read them, this published notice has told you absolutely nothing.

They might as well run an add that says "A company is insolvent. You might be a creditor. Or maybe not.  Good luck."

GM & Ignition Switches

My take on the Second Circuit's opinion – which Levitin has also written about (and I agree with him that the used car analysis is a bit "off") – is over on Dealb%k.  In short, I think that GM mostly has itself to blame for the inability to "discharge" these claims in its chapter 11 case. But the basic point that the federal Bankruptcy Code can override state law successor liability claims remains, despite what some state (and federal) courts have previously held.

Thoughts on the GM Ignition Switch Opinion

The Second Circuit handed down its much-anticipated decision on the GM successor liability claims. Bottom line is that most, if not all, of the various claims against New GM are not barred by the Sale Order because of lack of procedural Due Process.  That said, there's a lot more in the ruling.  My thoughts below the break: 

A few thoughts on Brexit and Restructuring

Over at Dealb%k.

Thoughts on Nortel (from Bob Rasmussen)

The following post comes to us from Professor Rasmussen at USC:

Nortel Bankruptcy Sets a Dangerous Precedent For the Future of Lending

Lenders are no fools. They care deeply about the promises they receive in return for the money they hand over to the borrower.  And if a 2015 ruling in the long-running Nortel Networks bankruptcy case is allowed to stand, it could lead to more restrictive lending to borrowers in the future.

For decades, our commercial law has allowed enterprises to divvy up promises as they see fit. Companies often conduct business through multiple, related entities. This allows lenders to extend credit knowing they’ll receive repayment for their loans from particularly asset-rich subsidiaries, that are not on the hook for all of the debts of the business. This adroit use of the corporate structure allows borrowers to get funds at a lower cost and, in the extreme, can mean securing a loan or not — which can be the difference in a business being able to operate.

Until recently, a lender taking a promise from a subsidiary of a business could rest assured that its only other competition to the subsidiary’s assets would be the other creditors. A recent case, however, threatens to overturn this accepted wisdom and bring uncertainty to financing of large enterprises.

New York Professional Responsibility Rules vs. Delaware Corporate Law?

The Caesars examiner's report makes for interesting reading. Of particular interest for our readers might be its discussion of the role of the lawyers, namely those at Paul Weiss, who simultaneously represented the Caesars holding company, its operating subsidiary, and the holding company's private equity sponsor.  As the report notes, it is not unusual for a law firm to simultaneously represent at a parent and a sub or a sponsor and a portfolio company. But the examiner's report argues that things change in one of the entities is insolvent because then the real party interest in that firm are the creditors, not the shareholders, and that means there is a real conflict of interest between the insolvent (or potentially insolvent) sub and the holding company (and private equity sponsor). 

Although the examiner's report ultimately concludes that there's probably not much basis for finding liability against Paul Weiss (which might not have even know of the insolvency), something jumped out at me:  the lurking conflict between Delaware corporate law and NY Rules of Professional Conduct.  

Here's the problem.  While the examiner's report is correct in describing creditors as the real party in interest in an insolvent company, that's not how Delaware corporate law treats things. In North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewala, the Delaware Supreme Court made very clear that even if a firm is insolvent, the duties of the directors still run to the firm and its shareholders, not to the creditors. (Were it otherwise, we'd have a lot of interesting litigation every time a firm got anywhere near insolvent, and risk averse directors would be well-counseled to file for bankruptcy the second insolvency appeared on the horizon.)

But let's assume that the examiner's report is correct that for the purposes of New York Rules of Professional Conduct there would be a conflict of interest such that the attorneys could not simultaneously represent both the parent and the insolvent sub.  Presumably whatever attorneys would represent the sub would have to look to the interests of the creditors of the sub under NYRPC.  How on earth would that work, when the sub's directors are responsible to the shareholder (i.e., the parent) under Delaware law?  If the examiner's report's interpretation of NY RPC is correct, then I don't see how any NY barred lawyer can represent a Delaware corporation that might be insolvent. (Of course, the solution to all of this might be simply be that there is a violation of NY RPC, but it isn't really actionable by any body, and no bar committee is going to look at this too closely.) 

Tribune Co. Creditors' Fraudulent Conveyance Claims Preempted by 546(e) ... or Not Reverted?

After a delay of nearly 15 months, the Second Circuit this past Friday finally released its opinion in the Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation. Briefly, the case concerned attempts by creditors to claw back payments to former shareholders in the Tribune Company's ill-fated LBO, which led to its 2008 bankruptcy. The theory of recovery was that buyout payments to former shareholders were made for less than reasonably equivalent value (to the company) while the company was insolvent (or thus rendered insolvent), so contemporaneous creditors could sue the former shareholders for return of the value they received as constructively fraudulent transfers. While the bankruptcy trustee (in this case, the Creditors Committee, by delegation) had the power to pursue these claims (under section 544(b)), it chose not to, most likely because section 546(e) prohibited it from doing so. But when the two-year statute of limitations for pursuing those actions passed, the claims supposedly reverted to the individual creditors (more on this below), who took up those claims with the explicit permission of the bankruptcy court. Fast-forward to last week ... I am not surprised that the Second Circuit stuck to its historically broad construction of the "settlement payment" safe harbor in section 546(e) and held that state law fraudulent conveyance actions by creditors are barred by that provision just as a similar action by a "trustee" would be. More interesting, in my view, is the "why are we even talking about this" discussion of whether those creditors had any right to be pursuing those claims in the first place.

The Trust Indenture Act Rider Is Not a "Clarifying Amendment"

Ken Klee has argued that the Trust Indenture Act rider to the omnibus appropriations bill is just a "clarifying amendment":

The primary objection being made by those opposed to this amendment is that Congress needs to hold extensive hearings. But this is just a correction to a recent misinterpretation of the statute – not a wholesale revision of the Trust Indenture Act.

That's just not right. This isn't just a "clarifying amendment". The proposed amendment neuters the Trust Indenture Act as a protection for bondholders.