Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Split Over Structured Dismissals

posted in: Cramdown and Priority | 0

By Douglas Mintz, Robert Loeb and Monica Perrigino of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. to decide whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds through a “structured dismissal” in a way that violates the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code.  Specifically, the Court must decide whether Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code, which details the order of payment of certain priority claims, must be followed outside of a plan when distributing proceeds pursuant to a structured settlement of a bankruptcy case.

The Supreme Court’s decision should resolve an important circuit split.  There is a strong textual argument to permit such distributions and structured dismissals, given the lack of provisions in the Bankruptcy Code dictating that priorities apply to settlements (as opposed to plans).  A ruling in favor of structured dismissals would serve to channel cases away from chapter 11 plans and toward consensual settlements, thereby reducing administrative costs and facilitating quicker bankruptcy resolutions.  However, this could also lead to settlements that run counter to the expected results under the absolute priority rule.  The Supreme Court’s decision may also indirectly permit “gifting” payments outside the scope of a plan – as courts have generally limited gifts in the plan context.

The full article is available here.

Establishing “Credible Losers” at Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies

By John Crawford, UC Hastings College of Law

Systemically important bank holding companies (“SIBs”) have always had an abundance of creditors that can legally absorb losses in the event of failure. The SIB bailouts of 2008, however, were driven by regulators’ unwillingness to allow losses to fall on these creditors. The Fed has recently proposed a rule requiring SIBs to issue large quantities of “loss-absorbing” long-term debt (“LTD”) out of their parent holding companies. If, however, regulators were averse to haircuts for SIB creditors before, how will creating a new class of debt help? I attempt to answer this question here. First, regulators fear the consequences of loss or delay for SIBs’ short-term creditors. These consequences include, inter alia, the risk of “contagion by simile,” as short-term creditors of other SIBs “run” to avoid a similar fate. This risk does not extend to long-term debt per se. The challenge of imposing losses on long-term debt while protecting short-term debt goes beyond mere repayment priority, however, as involuntary haircuts typically require a bankruptcy or resolution process that creates the risk of uncertainty or delay for all claims—potentially triggering the very contagion dynamics regulators wish to avoid. I nevertheless argue that the combination of a “single point of entry” resolution strategy for SIBs and a set of proposed “clean holding company” requirements plausibly solves the problem for LTD, so that it can absorb losses without creating these risks. In short, LTD may be the “credible loser” that SIBs previously lacked.

 

The full article may be found here.

Successor Liability in § 363 Sales

By Michael L. Cook of Schulte, Roth & Zabel LLP

Bankruptcy Code §363(f)(1) empowers a bankruptcy court to order a debtor’s assets sold “free and clear of any interest in such property.” Courts in the business bankruptcy context have been wrestling with successor liability, i.e., whether an asset buyer can be held liable for the debtor-seller’s liabilities. In 2009, the Second Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court order barring creditors of the selling debtor from pursuing the asset buyer “for product defects in vehicles produced by” the debtor. In re Chrysler LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2009), vacated as moot, 558 U.S. 1087 (2009) (held, successor liability claims are interests covered by a sale order under Code § 363(f)(1)).

Most recently, on July 13, 2016, the Second Circuit held that the bankruptcy court’s asset sale order in the General Motors reorganization case limiting specific pre-bankruptcy product liability claims required prior “actual or direct mail notice” to claimants when the debtor “knew or reasonably should have known about the claims.” In re Motors Liquidation Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12848, *46-47 (2d Cir. July 13, 2016). Although the substance of the sale order may have been enforceable otherwise, “mere publication notice” to known or knowable claimants was insufficient. Had the complaining product liability claimants received adequate notice, reasoned the court, they “could have had some negotiating leverage [regarding the terms of any sale order] . . . and [a meaningful] opportunity to participate in the proceedings.” Id. at *61. The court noted a “trend…toward a more expansive reading of ‘interests in property’ which encompasses other obligations that may flow from ownership of the property.” Id., at 124, citing In re Trans World Airlines, Inc., 322 F. 3d 283, 285-90 (3d Cir. 2003).

The full memo is available here.

Priority Matters

posted in: Cramdown and Priority | 0

By Douglas G. Baird, University of Chicago Law School

Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is organized around the absolute priority rule. This rule mandates the rank-ordering of claims. If one creditor has priority over another, this creditor must be paid in full before the junior creditor receives anything. Many have suggested various modifications to the absolute priority rule. The reasons vary and range from ensuring proper incentives to protecting nonadjusting creditors. The rule itself, however, remains the common starting place.

This paper uses relative priority, an entirely different priority system that flourished until the late 1930s, to show that using absolute priority even as a point of departure is suspect when firms are being reorganized. The essential difference between absolute and relative priority is the effect of bankruptcy on the exercise date of the call-option component of the junior investment instrument. Under absolute priority, the bankruptcy accelerates the exercise date; a regime of relative priority leaves it untouched.

Absolute priority is naturally suited for regimes in which the financially distressed firm is sold to the highest bidder. It is much less appropriate for a regime that puts a new capital structure in place without a market sale. In the absence of an actual sale, absolute priority requires some nonmarket valuation procedure. Such a valuation is costly and prone to error.

Chapter 11 attempts to minimize these costs by inducing the parties to bargain in the shadow of a judicial valuation, but rules are needed to police the strategic behavior that arises from the ability of parties to exploit information they have, but the judge does not.

Once one decides in favor of a reorganization rather than a market sale, the commitment to absolute priority is suspect. Instead of trying to find a bankruptcy mechanism that best vindicates the absolute priority rule, one is likely better off trying to identify the priority rule that minimizes the costs of bankruptcy itself. Asking which priority rule is most likely to lead to a successful plan at reasonable cost is a better point of departure than a debate over which priority rule provides the best set of ex ante incentives.

Looking at Chapter 11 from this perspective shows that much of the complexity and virtually all of the stress points of modern Chapter 11 arise from the uneasy fit between its priority regime (absolute instead of relative) and its procedure (negotiation in the shadow of a judicial valuation instead of a market sale). These forces are leading to the emergence of a hybrid system of priority that may be more efficient than one centered around absolute priority.

Read the full article here (forthcoming 165 U. Pa. L. Rev.).