By Lisa P. Sumner (Nexsen Pruet)
Two recent amendments to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code impose new hurdles for debtors and trustees to clear before filing an action against a creditor to recover the value of preferential transfers that the debtor made to the creditor prior to filing a bankruptcy petition. One amendment requires debtors and trustees to conduct a due diligence review of the circumstances surrounding a particular transfer and probable affirmative defenses before filing suit. The other amendment increases the amount that debtors and trustees must seek to recover in a preference action if they want to file the action in the court where the bankruptcy case is pending rather than in the court where the creditor is located. These creditor-friendly amendments will take effect in early 2020, and may discourage debtors and trustees from filing some preference actions.
The full article is available here.
By Jonathan Seymour, Steven L. Schwarcz (Duke University School of Law)
The European Union recently adopted a Restructuring Directive intended to facilitate the reorganization of insolvent and other financially troubled firms. Although the central goal of the Directive parallels that of Chapter 11 of U.S. bankruptcy law—to protect and maximize the value of financially distressed but economically viable enterprises by consensually reorganizing their capital structure—the Directive introduces an innovative but controversial option: that EU Member States can decree that reorganization negotiations should be subject to a relative priority default rule, as opposed to the type of absolute priority default rule used by Chapter 11.
The purpose of the default rule—whether relative or absolute priority—is to provide a mechanism whereby a plan of reorganization may be approved notwithstanding failure of the parties to reach a consensus. Such a “cram down” plan reflects that one or more classes of impaired creditors or shareholders dissents. In that case, the EU’s relative priority default rule would allow confirmation of the cram down plan so long as senior classes are treated more favorably than junior classes. In contrast, Chapter 11’s absolute priority default rule would require senior classes to be paid in full before junior classes receive any distribution under the cram down plan.
EU officials argue that relative priority would provide a fairer and more pragmatic default rule than absolute priority. We disagree. As explained below, we believe that a relative priority default rule would, perversely, make consensual reorganization plans less likely. We also illustrate why a relative priority default rule could produce unfair and economically undesirable outcomes.
A relative priority default rule would make consensual reorganization plans less likely because, unlike an absolute priority default rule, it would not function as a penalty default. Absolute priority functions as a penalty default because it would require a costly and contentious going-concern valuation of the debtor, in order to determine what share of the equity in the reorganized debtor is necessary to pay the claims of senior classes in full before any remaining value may be paid to junior classes. To avoid that cost and contention, the parties are motivated to negotiate a consensual plan, even if they would have to give up some value.
Relative priority, in contrast, would not operate effectively as a penalty default rule. A debtor could gain approval of a nonconsensual (i.e., cram down) plan without any valuation of the reorganized business. Even if a valuation is required, a simple and relatively inexpensive floor or ceiling valuation should suffice, rather than the precise valuation required under absolute priority. Parties therefore would have little incentive to compromise.
A relative priority default rule also would permit unfair outcomes. Our article shows how such a default rule would permit shareholders to retain much of the value in a reorganized business, while forcing creditors to accept significantly less than full payment. That could make debt investments less attractive in EU Member States that adopt a relative priority default rule. At the same time, relative priority would create incentives, as was the case in the early years of the U.S. bankruptcy laws, for senior and junior classes to collude to “squeeze” intermediate classes. Additionally, by reducing the risk of insolvency for shareholders and management, relative priority could operate as a subsidy for overleveraged businesses and encourage risky behavior.
For all of these reasons, we believe that EU Members States should avoid adopting a relative priority default rule. Our article also responds to potential defenses of that option. We demonstrate that relative priority is unnecessary to deter holdout creditors from obstructing the plan negotiation process. We additionally explain why relative priority is not needed to promote successful reorganizations of small and medium sized businesses. To the extent that traditional Chapter 11-style reorganization has not worked well for small businesses in the US, we suggest that the recent Small Business Reorganization Act provides a better restructuring model by permitting such businesses to reorganize on a “best efforts” basis.
The full article is available here.
By Jonathan C. Lipson (Temple University Beasley School of Law), Adam J. Levitin (Georgetown Law Center), Stephen J. Lubben (Seton Hall University School of Law)
Recently, we (along with colleagues at other law schools) asked that an examiner be appointed in the Purdue Pharma chapter 11 bankruptcy case, pending in the Southern District of New York. Although the Bankruptcy Court has not yet acted on that request (technically, it was in the form of a letter to the United States Trustee), it has generated controversy and media attention (e.g., WSJ, WaPo, Rachel Maddow), which will likely persist until there are credible answers to the questions that motivated our request:
- What was the role of the Sackler family (the owners of Purdue) in Purdue’s role in the opioid crisis? and
- To what extent did the Sacklers or other insiders strip assets out of Purdue in anticipation of bankruptcy?
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code governs corporate reorganizations, such as Purdue Pharma’s, and provides that an examiner can be appointed if, among other things, it is in the interests of creditors and the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Here, we argued that there is an overwhelming public interest which overlaps with the estate’s interest. This makes the need for an independent report on these two questions compelling.
As is well known, Purdue Pharma is at the center of the opioid crisis in America, having developed and marketed Oxycontin (among other drugs). This crisis has generated more than 2600 lawsuits against Purdue and the Sacklers, many brought by state and local governments that have had to bear the costs of drug addiction. The debtors and the Sacklers have proposed a settlement under which the Sacklers would cede the company to a “public trust” and make additional contributions, in exchange for releases. The settlement is alleged to be between $10 and $12 billion, with $3 billion of that coming from the Sacklers directly. While some plaintiffs have agreed to the settlement, others have not, and are fighting the bankruptcy process.
Like many mass tort debtors—from Johns-Manville to PG&E—Purdue seeks to channel and control its liability through bankruptcy reorganization. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain, of the Southern District of New York, has stayed the lawsuits, not just against Purdue, but also against the Sacklers, even though they are not debtors in bankruptcy—in order to permit the debtors to negotiate a plan of reorganization that would embody the proposed settlement.
We argued that an independent examination would answer the two key questions more credibly and efficiently than other mechanisms in bankruptcy for three reasons.
First, unlike many mass-tort bankruptcies, these cases appear to shield non-debtors (the Sacklers) from discovery and potential liability, even though there are credible allegations that they may have actively contributed to the opioid crisis and/or stripped assets from the debtors. The important question is not whether the Sacklers are making a contribution to a bankruptcy plan in exchange for a release from future liability, but whether their contribution is appropriate in light of the answers to our two questions. It will be very difficult to assess that without an independent examiner’s report.
Second, because Purdue Pharma is privately held, it is hard to know what happened at the company before bankruptcy. The debtors have appointed a special committee of the board to look into the pre-bankruptcy transfers, but because the Sacklers apparently still control the debtors, it is hard to know how independent this committee was, or can be. The committee is, for example, represented by the same counsel as Purdue Pharma, which may hamper the committee’s independence. In any case, even where other high profile debtors, such as Enron, have used independent committees to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, courts have nevertheless appointed bankruptcy examiners to assess, verify, and supplement the work of those committees. It is hard to see why Purdue should be different.
Third, and perhaps most important, the opioid crisis is not like other mass torts because it has generated extraordinary public interest. Victims of the opioid crisis understandably want their day in court—which is something that bankruptcy tends to eliminate. While thousands of lawsuits would be wasteful, failing to take seriously the dignitary interests of victims of the opioid crisis could threaten the legitimacy and integrity of the bankruptcy system. At the same time, if an independent examiner exonerates the Sacklers, this may help provide the redemption that they presumably want.
Although the United States Trustee has not yet sought an examiner, there have been three interesting developments since we sent the letter:
- On November 6, 2019 Marshall Huebner, counsel to the debtor in possession, emailed us to say that “the Debtors (likely along with other core stakeholders) intend to strongly oppose the request, which, with apologies to its authors, contains many misstatements of fact.” However, Huebner identified no “misstatements of fact” (much less “many”).
- On November 15, 2019, ten days after we sent the letter, the debtors filed a stipulation with counsel to the creditors committee and certain members of the Sackler family. The debtors and the Sacklers agreed to produce certain information to the committee (on a “professional eyes’ only basis”) that may respond to certain of the questions we asked, but in exchange the committee relinquished its right to seek an examiner until mid-April 2020. It is not clear how estate fiduciaries can properly cede such rights.
- On December 16, 2019, the debtors filed a redacted version of the “independent” report noted above. It indicates that the Sacklers took about $10 billion in cash out of the debtors since 2008. This is not surprising, since the total value of the proposed settlement would have a face amount of about $10 billion (but a substantially lower present value given its payment schedule, and would not cover interest on the $10 billion).
The takeaway seems to be that, even though no examiner has been appointed, the Sacklers and the debtors in possession have begun to produce some information that may help to answer the questions we believe are central to this case. In this regard, the mere threat of an examiner might be having an effect. However, the ability to assess and verify this information is limited, at least for the time being.
That no one has actually requested an examiner is, at one level, not surprising. It is easy to imagine that managing this case is exceedingly difficult. The insiders in the case—especially counsel to the debtors and the official committee, and Judge Drain—may view an examiner as a wrench in the delicate machinery of the proposed settlement. Parties might therefore prefer to maintain the threat of an examiner, even as they are reluctant to pull the trigger on a motion.
The Purdue bankruptcy is, however, bigger than the financial claims of any of Purdue’s creditors. Purdue is a not a case that can be run like a standard chapter 11 because there is a strong public interest in establishing a clear and independent record of what Purdue and the Sacklers knew and did about the dangers of opioids, and the extent of the Sacklers’ transactions with Purdue. Establishing these facts credibly is important not just for the dignitary interests of opioid victims and their families, but also so that creditors can properly evaluate any settlement that emerges as part of the reorganization process.
Without credible answers to the questions we asked, there will be a shadow over these cases, one that may ultimately threaten the integrity of the reorganization process.
The full letter is available here.
By Brad B. Erens and Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day)
In In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 773 Fed. Appx. 89, 2019 WL 2535700 (3d Cir. June 19, 2019), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that adequate protection payments made during a bankruptcy case and distributions under a chapter 11 plan are not distributions of collateral for purposes of a “waterfall” provision in an intercreditor agreement. The ruling is a reminder that intercreditor agreements will apply only in accordance with their terms.Although the parties could have drafted the intercreditor agreement to apply to any consideration received from the debtor by the noteholders, they did not. Therefore, the intercreditor agreement did not apply to the adequate protection payments and plan distributions made to the noteholders.Creditors have recently learned similar lessons in other cases. Because the ruling was unpublished, the decision is not binding on courts in the Third Circuit.
The full article is available here.
By Laura Smith (Norton Rose Fulbright)
The Dubai International Financial Centre (the “DIFC”), one of the leading international financial hubs in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia (the “MEASA”) region, has recently announced the enactment of the new DIFC Insolvency Law, Law No. 1 of 2019 (the “New DIFC Insolvency Law”), which became effective in June 2019. Importantly, the New DIFC Insolvency Law which will repeal and replace the Insolvency Law of 2009 and was the subject of substantial research and global benchmarking introduces a completely new rehabilitation provision for distressed companies in the DIFC in addition to the previously existing procedures such as company voluntary arrangements, receiverships and liquidations. With the goal of promoting the rehabilitation of viable businesses that are part of the DIFC while addressing the continuing needs of the various stakeholders involved, the DIFC made several key changes as part of its enactment of the New DIFC Insolvency Law including: (1) the introduction of a debtor in possession procedure known as rehabilitation; (2) the introduction of a procedure that allows the management of a company to be replaced by a court-appointed administrator when there has been mismanagement of or misconduct by the company or management; (3) enhancing and modernizing existing rules and procedures; and (4) the incorporation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.
The full article is available here.
By Daniel J. Bussel (UCLA School of Law)
The Second Circuit recently issued its revised opinion in Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, determining that a debtor-transferor that effectuates a transfer involving a securities contract in its capacity as the customer of a commercial bank is itself a “financial institution” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code section 101(22)(A) and therefore the transfer is protected under section 546(e).
This ruling has critically important implications for the avoiding powers of the bankruptcy trustee. Section 546(e) insulates all transfers involving securities by or to a financial institution from avoidance except as an “actual fraud” under section 548(a)(1)(A). Virtually all transferors are customers of commercial banks and almost any transfer can be effectuated with funds transferred through the agency or in the possession of a commercial bank. The result is the virtual repeal of the avoiding powers as to any transfer involving securities that is not an actual fraud on creditors, undoing centuries of fraudulent transfer and preference law.
These considerations are powerful enough that the Second Circuit, if necessary in light of the statute’s plain language, should have striven mightily to avoid interpreting the term “financial institution” so as to include the customers of commercial banks. The Code’s avoiding power sections read as a whole make no sense if limited only to cases involving transfers by entities that are not customers of commercial banks. Moreover, such a reading of section 101(22) flies in the face of Merit Management, the recent, directly applicable, Supreme Court precedent.
The full article is available here.
For more posts on the scope of section 546(e), see Ralph Brubaker, Understanding the Scope of the § 546(e) Securities Safe Harbor Through the Concept of the “Transfer” Sought to Be Avoided.
By Samuel Antill (Stanford Graduate School of Business)
In Chapter 11 bankruptcies, a court-supervised negotiation among creditors leads to one of two possible forms of exit, liquidation or emergence. In a liquidation, the bankrupt firm’s assets are sold (piecemeal or in a going-concern sale). Alternatively, if creditors agree to restructure the firm’s liabilities, the firm emerges and continues operating. I estimate a structural model of the choice between emergence and liquidation. In my sample of large-firm bankruptcies, I estimate that creditor recovery was substantially reduced by inefficient decisions to liquidate.
According to the “creditor’s bargain” theory of bankruptcy, the efficient form of exit (liquidation or emergence) from Chapter 11 is that which optimizes total expected creditor recovery. Beyond the importance to creditor recovery, an efficient approach to choosing between liquidation and emergence benefits pre-bankruptcy equity holders through lower costs of credit. The efficient form of exit from bankruptcy should be achieved, under the conditions of the Coase Theorem, by the bargaining among creditors that Chapter 11 is supposed to promote. Without this bargaining, potential coordination failures arise when each creditor pursues the form of exit that maximizes its own payoff.
In contrast to the view that Coasian bargaining in Chapter 11 successfully preserves viable firms, I estimate that inefficient decisions to liquidate are frequent. However, very few of the firms in my sample were inefficiently selected to emerge. I provide an explanation for this asymmetry. Exiting Chapter 11 through a confirmed plan of reorganization requires creditor consent under established voting rules. In contrast, Section 363(b) of the bankruptcy code allows managers to sell assets, or entire firms, without creditor approval. This procedure circumvents the bargaining among creditors that Chapter 11 supposedly promotes. I show that inefficient liquidations are concentrated in cases involving “363 sales.” This statistical association suggests that Section 363(b) enables the sort of coordination failure that Chapter 11 was designed to prevent. For example, these results are consistent with a view that managers may be inefficiently liquidating firms in order to benefit senior lenders or to obtain a job for themselves at a purchasing company.
Finally, I find that inefficient liquidations are largely avoidable. Using my estimated model, I consider the following counterfactual: how would expected creditor recovery change if form-of-exit decisions had been made by a statistical model? In this counterfactual scenario, the courts would hire a statistician to compare the expected potential recovery rates implied by my fitted model and recommend either liquidation or emergence. Each recommendation depends only on data available at the start of a given bankruptcy. I find that such a court statistician could dramatically improve average recovery.
The full article is available here.
By Robert Hockett (Cornell Law School)
The Blackjewel Coal bankruptcy of summer 2019 exposed critical weaknesses in our state-based system of employee creditor protection. Notwithstanding employees’ priority over other unsecured creditors in bankruptcy, and notwithstanding a bonding requirement imposed by the State of Kentucky, Blackjewel’s final round of paychecks paid to employees ‘bounced,’ confronting employees with imminent personal bankruptcies, forgone medical and other services, and even mortgage foreclosure and homelessness.
Happily, ultimate resolution of the Blackjewel case later in autumn saw the employees made whole and the company investigated for fraud. But this solution was anything but assured before it was reached, and employees in any event suffered substantial harm in the form of disrupted family budgets and substantial uncertainty as to ultimate recovery for months – including, critically, just as a new school year was commencing for employee families’ children.
It would seem well advised, then, to put in place a more permanent and reliable process for cases like that of Blackjewel and its employees. What is needed is a solution that is uniformly applicable, reliable, and known in advance such that all concerned parties can bargain and plan ‘in the shadow’ of the regime. Our present arrangements are subject to vagaries of state law and state budgets that vary across state jurisdictional space and fiscal time. The obvious solution to the difficulties raised by such variance is to subject this realm, like that of bankruptcy itself, to federal legislation.
A bill I have recently drafted and advocated aims to ‘fit the bill’ in effect called-for by the Blackjewel affair. It does so by (a) assigning the Department of Labor (‘DOL’) a permanent representation role in future employer insolvencies; (b) federalizing the employer bonding requirements now found only in inconsistently administered state laws; (c) establishing an Employee Liquidity Support Fund to tide employees over while bankruptcy proceedings are pending; and (d) holding employing-firms’ executive officers personally liable for violations of the Act’s requirements.
The reason for DOL representation and oversight is to ensure that employees have a coherent and powerful representative ‘at the table’ during insolvency proceedings – one that is endowed with oversight authority not only during, but in advance of insolvencies.
The reason for federalizing employer bonding requirements is that states often vary over time in respect of the seriousness with which they administer such requirements, presumably in part for reasons sounding in lobbying pressures and ideology but also for reasons of basic capacity – large employers, after all, often are ‘bigger’ than the states that would supervise them.
The reason for establishing an Employee Liquidity Support Fund is presumably obvious. What made Blackjewel’s travails so hard on employees was precisely the fact that ultimate resolution was long in coming, while employee families’ daily living expenses couldn’t ‘wait.’ Against such a backdrop it makes sense for DOL to do for employees what our Federal Reserve does for financial institutions while insolvency and consolidation proceedings are underway – viz., provide tide-over funding.
Finally, the reason for holding executive officers personally liable for compliance with the Act’s requirements should be obvious as well. For again as in the case of financial institutions, so here the only surefire way of ‘incentivizing’ firms to comply is to incentivize those through whom all firms act – their executives, as the term ‘executive’ (derived from ‘execute’) itself suggests. Diffuse shareholders, who often lack power over corporate officers, and insider shareholders, who often have interests at odds with the interests of non-executive employees in any event, simply aren’t up to the task.
Employing firms, their executives and their owners have enjoyed multiple forms of state patronage for decades in our nation, while employees have in general enjoyed only sporadic assistance from public sector institutions and, less now than any time since the early 20th century, labor unions. This Act will help further a cause that’s increasingly now recognized once again to be both morally and economically compelling: That is the task of protecting the interests of our own productive citizenry – our labor force.
The full article is available here.
By Mark G. Douglas and Dan T. Moss (Jones Day)
On July 25, 2019, the Judicial Insolvency Network announced its adoption of the Modalities of Court-to-Court Communication (the “Modalities”), which “apply to direct communications (written or oral) between courts in specific cases of cross-border proceedings relating to insolvency or adjustment of debt opened in more than one jurisdiction.” The Modalities are intended to facilitate implementation of the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters, which since 2017 have been adopted by courts in several countries, including the Supreme Court of Singapore, the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Delaware, the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Florida, and courts in the United Kingdom, Australia, The Netherlands, South Korea, Canada, Bermuda, and the Eastern Caribbean. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware adopted the Modalities on an interim basis on July 25, 2019. It is anticipated that other courts will do so as well in the near term.
Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day) summarized key features of the Modalities and other developments since the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters as developed and implemented by JIN (the judicial Insolvency Network) here.
In In re PT Bakrie Telecom Tbk, 601 B.R. 707 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York provided a primer on several important issues that a court may have to consider in ruling on a petition for recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. These include the requirement that a foreign debtor have property in the United States before being eligible for chapter 15, the rules regarding the appointment of a “foreign representative” for the debtor, what qualifies as a “collective proceeding” for the purpose of chapter 15 recognition, and the “public policy” exception to recognition. One notable conclusion by the court is that merely because a foreign proceeding has concluded does not prevent the later appointment of a foreign representative.
An examination of all of the issues highlighted by PT Bakrie entails a detailed factual analysis and careful application of the provisions of chapter 15 consistent with its underlying principles and purpose in providing assistance to foreign tribunals overseeing cross-border bankruptcy cases. Dan T. Moss and Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day) provided such a close examination and detailed analysis of the case here.
By David Skeel (University of Pennsylvania Law School)
On June 30, 2016, Congress passed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”) in response to the economic crisis in Puerto Rico, which was already a decade old at that point and had left Puerto Rico with roughly $70 billion in overall debt and $50 billion of unfunded pension liabilities. PROMESA created a seven-member oversight board (the “Oversight Board”), and authorized the Oversight Board both to certify five (or more) year fiscal plans for Puerto Rico and its public corporations, and to initiate bankruptcy-like proceedings if necessary.
For over three years now, I’ve had the privilege of serving as one of the seven initial members of the Oversight Board. It has been a rocky ride at times, and we have been criticized both from the right (by creditors unhappy with our conclusion the debt needs to be significantly restructured) and from the left (for our conclusion that government reform and right-sizing are needed). The past year has finally brought at least some evidence of progress, although significant obstacles remain before anyone will be able to declare victory.
In this essay, I chronicle the Board’s efforts up to the beginning of last summer, shortly before widespread protests of the former governor led to his resignation. I begin with a brief sketch of the depth of Puerto Rico’s economic distress, which was made far worse by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, and of the principal responsibilities vested in the Oversight Board by PROMESA. I then survey the major decisions the Oversight Board has made—or in some cases, unsuccessfully tried to make—and the challenges that remain as the current Board members come to the end of our terms (which theoretically ended on August 31, three years after we were appointed, but continue until we are replaced with new members by the President and Congress).
The full article is available here.