Insider Status and U.S. Bank v. Village at Lakeridge
by | posted in: Avoidance, Cramdown and Priority, fraudulent transfer, Insider Status | 0

By Ronit J. Berkovich and David Li (Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), offered plenty of hints on an important topic while simultaneously ruling very little about it.  In chapter 11, whether a creditor qualifies as an “insider” can have enormous implications on a range of issues, including plan confirmation, fraudulent transfer and preference analyses, and severance payment and employee incentive/retention plan (KEIP/KERP) approvals.  Lakeridge involved a dispute as to whether the bankruptcy court properly determined in confirming a plan that the sole impaired accepting creditor (the romantic partner of one of the debtor’s officers) was not a “non-statutory” insider.  If the creditor actually were such an insider, then the chapter 11 plan should not have been confirmed.

In granting cert to hear the case, the Supreme Court expressly declined the opportunity to address whether the Ninth Circuit articulated the correct legal test to determine if a person qualifies as a non-statutory insider.  Instead, the Supreme Court granted cert only to answer the narrow question of whether the Ninth Circuit applied the correct standard of review to the lower court’s determination.  Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, kept to that script by simply affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision to apply a clear error standard of review.  Concurrences by Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor, however, each acknowledged shortcomings in the legal test the Ninth Circuit applied and each appeared to invite lower courts to consider alternative approaches.  As a whole, Lakeridge provides little binding guidance, and practitioners can expect further development in non-statutory insider law by the Courts of Appeals.

The article is available here.

Fraudulent Transfer Avoidance Recovery Not Limited to Total Amount of Creditor Claims
by | posted in: Avoidance, fraudulent transfer | 0

By Jane Rue Wittstein and Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day)

Courts disagree as to whether the amount that a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession can recover in fraudulent transfer avoidance litigation should be capped at the total amount of unsecured claims against the estate. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently weighed in on this issue in PAH Litigation Trust v. Water Street Healthcare Partners, L.P. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), 2017 WL 5054308 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 1, 2017). Noting the absence of any guidance on the question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the bankruptcy court ruled that, unlike most state fraudulent transfer laws, which limit a creditor’s recovery to the amount of its unpaid claim against the transferor, section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code imposes no such limitation on the estate’s recovery. The ruling reinforces the idea that federal and state fraudulent transfer avoidance laws are intended to be remedial rather than punitive. Under state law, this understandably means that an avoidance recovery is limited to the amount necessary to make an injured creditor whole. Under federal bankruptcy law, recoveries must benefit the bankruptcy estate, which includes the interests of creditors and other stakeholders.

The article is available here.

Third Circuit Dismisses Crystallex’s Fraudulent Transfer Claim But Potential Liability Remains for PDVSA
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Administration and Jurisdiction, Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, fraudulent transfer | 0

By Richard J. Cooper and Boaz S. Morag (Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP).

On January 3, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dealt a significant blow to Crystallex International Corporation’s long-running effort to recover its $1.2 billion arbitral award and judgment against the Republic of Venezuela for appropriating Crystallex’s rights to the Las Cristinas gold mine. In a 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit reversed a decision of the Delaware district court that had allowed Crystallex to allege a Delaware fraudulent transfer claim against a Delaware corporation wholly owned by the Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA. Instead, the Third Circuit decided that a non-debtor transferor cannot be liable for a fraudulent transfer under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“DUFTA”).

For PDVSA’s secured 2020 bondholders, the decision is welcome news, and makes the chances of any of those transactions being unwound, and the liens granted to 2020 bondholders set aside, even more remote. While Crystallex’s chance at a recovery against PDVSA remains alive if it is successful in its alter ego claims, PDVSA 2020 bondholders can rest easier knowing that they will retain their liens and priority to any proceeds from a sale of their collateral ahead of Crystallex or similar claimants even if such claimants successfully pursue alter ego claims against PDVSA. For other Republic creditors considering a similar strategy to Crystallex, the chances of jumping ahead of the 2020 secured PDVSA bonds or even debt below PDV Holding are now less likely, and with each passing day of litigation, the challenge of collecting any award from the cash-strapped nation only increases.

The article is available here.

Merit Management v. FTI: Law Firm Perspectives
by | posted in: Avoidance, Financial Firms and Safe Harbors, fraudulent transfer, Statutory Interpretation, Supreme Court | 0

On February 27, the Supreme Court decided Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., holding unanimously that the § 546(e) safe harbor does not protect allegedly fraudulent transfers “in which financial institutions served as mere conduits.” The Court’s decision resolves a circuit split on the reach of § 546(e). In reaching its conclusion, the Court focused on the “end-to-end transfer” that the trustee seeks to avoid, rather than any “component parts of the overarching transfer.” In FTI, because the overarching transfer was made between two parties not otherwise shielded by the safe harbor, the transfer will now fall outside the safe harbor.

As many law firms recognize, this decision will have wide-ranging implications on the finality of securities transactions effected through financial institutions, especially leveraged buyouts. Mayer Brown notes that as the decision enhances a trustee’s ability to recover fraudulent transfers, it also increases the bankruptcy estate’s leverage against recipients of pre-petition transfers. Cleary observes that “debtors or trustees may strategically frame avoidance actions in order to limit the scope of the safe harbor.” Mayer Brown concludes that the decision may also expose investors, investment funds and similar entities to fraudulent transfer litigation risks.

The bottom line, as Davis Polk notes, is that the § 546(e) safe harbor is no longer a blanket safe harbor for the recipients of transactions that pass through financial institutions. But the safe harbor will still shield financial institutions operating as escrow agents or clearinghouses, as the Court expressly stated that a financial institution under § 546(e) is protected whether the institution acts as a principal or as an intermediary.

Firms have noted that the decision also left open some ambiguities. First, Schulte Roth & Zabel writes that the Court leaves open possible arguments that any “customer” of a “financial institution” is also itself a “financial institution” under § 546(e). Second, Mayer Brown points out that the Court did not address whether the transaction at issue actually qualified as a transfer that is a “settlement payment” or made in connection with a “securities contract” under § 546(e). These ambiguities will draw the attention of defendants in future fraudulent transfer litigation.

Finally, Weil notes that the decision raises the question of how the preemption of state-law creditor remedies under § 546(e) will be applied in light of the Supreme Court’s now-narrow construction of the safe harbor.

By Jianjian Ye, Harvard Law School, J.D. 2018.

The roundtable has posted on FTI before. Some of those posts are: an analysis of the FTI oral argument, the Amici Curiae Brief of Bankruptcy Law Professors, an article by Ralph Brubaker on the meaning of § 546(e), and a roundup of law firm perspectives on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016).

Recent Developments in Bankruptcy Law, February 2018
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Administration and Jurisdiction, Trademarks | 0

By Richard Levin (Jenner & Block LLP)

The bankruptcy courts and their appellate courts continue to explore issues of interest to practitioners and academics. This quarterly summary of recent developments in bankruptcy law covers cases reported during the fourth quarter of 2017.

The Eleventh Circuit was particularly noteworthy, holding that an individual debtor may recover attorneys’ fees for litigating a damages claim for a stay violation, including fees on appeal (Mantiply v. Horne) and, perhaps more ominously, that a chapter 13 confirmation order is not binding on a creditor who does not object to confirmation but has filed a stay relief motion and that state forfeiture laws may remove property from the estate while the case is pending (Title Max v. Northington). A rehearing motion has been filed in the latter case.

The First Circuit has diverged from the Seventh Circuit, holding that rejection of a trademark license deprives the licensee of future use of the license. (Tempnology)

The Delaware bankruptcy court reaffirmed what should have been clear that a trustee’s avoiding power and recovery claim is not limited to the amount of creditor claims, because section 550 speaks to benefit of the estate, not of creditors. (Physiotherapy Holdings)

Two bankruptcy courts have clarified the prerequisites for and the scope of third party releases and their jurisdiction to issue them, limiting releases by non-voting creditors and of non-indemnified insiders or professionals (New York: SunEdison) and prohibiting a “purchase” of a release solely by making a contribution to the estate. (Colorado: Midway Gold) 

The full memo, discussing these and other cases, is available here, and the full (900-page) compilation of all prior editions is available here.

Amicus Brief on the Scope of the Bankruptcy Safe Harbor for Securities Settlement Payments Filed in Merit Mgmt. v. FTI Consulting
by | posted in: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Roundtable Updates, Financial Firms and Safe Harbors | 0

By Ralph Brubaker (University of Illinois College of Law), Bruce A. Markell (Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law), Charles W. Mooney, Jr. (University of Pennsylvania Law School), and Mark Roe (Harvard Law School).

Bankruptcy Code § 546(e) contains a safe harbor that prevents avoidance of a securities settlement payment, e.g. as a preferential or constructively fraudulent transfer. This amicus brief was filed in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., No. 16-784 (U.S.). The brief explains how § 546(e) rationally constrains its scope via the statutory specification that the safe harbor only applies (because it need only apply) if the “transfer” sought to be avoided was allegedly “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a protected securities market intermediary, such as a stockbroker or a financial institution.

Ascertaining the meaning and function of that determinative scope language requires an understanding of (1) the concept of a “transfer” as the fundamental analytical transaction unit throughout the Code’s avoidance provisions, and (2) the relationship between that avoidable “transfer” concept and the inextricably interrelated concepts of who that “transfer” is “made by or to (or for the benefit of).” By its express terms, § 546(e) only shields a challenged “transfer” from avoidance if (1) that transfer was “made by” a debtor-transferor who was a qualifying intermediary, “or” (2) a party with potential liability—because the challenged transfer allegedly was made “to or for the benefit of” that party—was a protected intermediary. Thus, the transfer of cash to a stock seller and of the stock back to the buyer is not safe-harbored. The delivery of the cash (and the stock) through financial intermediaries, however, is.

The full amicus brief may be found here.

Oral argument took place on November 6, 2017. The transcript is available here. The roundtable previously posted an article by Ralph Brubaker on the meaning of § 546(e) and a roundup of law firm perspectives on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision on May 1, 2017. Petitioner Merit Management Group, LP’s opening brief was subsequently filed, along with the Respondent’s brief, and Petitioner’s reply. Additional amicus curiae briefs were filed by Opportunity Partners, L.P., Various Former Tribune and Lyondell Shareholders, Tribune Company Retirees and Noteholders, and the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees.

Federal District Court Reinstates Fraudulent Transfer Challenge to Lyondell LBO
by | posted in: Avoidance | 0

By Richard G. Mason, David A. Katz, and Emil A. Kleinhaus (Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

In situations where leveraged buyouts prove unsuccessful, and the companies subject to the buyouts file for bankruptcy, it is not unusual for debtors or creditors’ committees to seek to challenge the LBOs on fraudulent transfer grounds.  In recent years, however, it is has become increasingly difficult to mount such challenges — at least in certain jurisdictions — as a result of judicial decisions that have broadly applied the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” for securities transactions to protect LBO participants from fraudulent transfer liability.

In a significant set of decisions, the District Court for the Southern District of New York has reinstated a fraudulent transfer claim to recover approximately $6.3 billion in distributions made to Lyondell Chemical shareholders in connection with Lyondell’s 2007 leveraged buyout. The decisions demonstrate that, despite the broad reach of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor,” LBOs may still be subject to challenge on fraudulent transfer grounds where the seller’s management is alleged to have acted with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.

The full memo is available here.

Texas Supreme Court Resolves Good Faith Value Defense Issue For Fifth Circuit
by | posted in: Avoidance | 0

By Michael L. Cook, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP

The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) (§ 8(a)), like Bankruptcy Code 548(c), provides a complete defense for a “good faith” transferee who gives “reasonably equivalent value” when receiving cash from a fraudulent debtor. Courts have been split as to whether the good faith defense is available to transferees of Ponzi scheme debtors in the fraudulent transfer context. Thus, the Fifth Circuit held an advertising firm in an SEC receiver’s Texas fraudulent transfer suit liable for $5.9 million it had received in good faith from a Ponzi scheme debtor. Janvey v. Golf Channel Inc., 780 F.3d 641, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2015 (advertising services had “no value” to Ponzi scheme creditors although services might be “quite valuable” to creditors of a legitimate business; reversed district court’s holding that defendant “looks more like an innocent trade creditor than a salesman…extending [debtor’s] Ponzi scheme.”)

The Fifth Circuit vacated its decision three months later and certified the question of “what showing of ‘value’ under [the Texas version of the [UFTA]] is sufficient for a transferee to prove…the [good-faith] affirmative defense….” 2016 WL 1268188, at *2. The Texas Supreme Court answered the question on April 1, 2016, after discussing the statutory purpose and reviewing what other federal and state courts have done. According to the court, the UFTA “does not contain separate standards for accessing ‘value’ and ‘reasonably equivalent value’ based on whether the debtor was operating a Ponzi scheme…. Value must be determined objectively at the time of the transfer and in relation to the individual exchange at hand rather than viewed in the context of the debtor’s enterprise.”

The full memo is available here: Texas Supreme Court Resolves Good Faith Defense Issue for Fifth Circuit

Third Circuit holds Sec. 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code applicable to already-expired CBAs
by | posted in: Avoidance | 0

By Mark A. Salzberg and Jill S. Kirila of Squire Patton Boggs

The Bankruptcy Code prohibits a debtor from unilaterally rejecting a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Instead, in order for a debtor employer to be able to reject a CBA, the debtor must comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of Sec. 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code and then obtain authority from the Bankruptcy Court. What is less clear is whether Sec. 1113 applies to a CBA that has already expired by its own terms. This is a crucial question since, under the National Labor Relations Act, an employer cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of a CBA even after its expiration. Instead, the employer must continue to perform in accordance with the expired CBA until a new CBA is negotiated or an impasse is reached.

Earlier this year, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals became the first circuit level court to address the question of whether Sec. 1113 is applicable to an already-expired CBA. The Court ruled in favor of the employer, Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., and held that Sec. 1113 applied to expired CBAs and that Trump Entertainment could reject the CBA because it had complied with the requirements of Sec. 1113. This ruling is certain to have a significant effect on labor issues arising in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

The full memo is available here: Third Circuit holds Sec. 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code applicable to already-expired CBAs

S.D.N.Y. Holds that Avoidance Powers Can be Applied Extraterritorially
by | posted in: Avoidance, International and Comparative | 0

By Fredric Sosnick, Douglas P. Bartner, Joel Moss, Solomon J. Noh and Ned S. Schodek of Shearman & Sterling LLP

On January 4, 2016, in one of the recent decisions In re Lyondell Chemical Company, et al., the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York deviated from S.D.N.Y. precedent and held that, despite the absence of clear Congressional intent, the avoidance powers provided for under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code can be applied extraterritorially. As a result, a fraudulent transfer of property of a debtor’s estate that occurs outside of the United States can be recovered under Sec. 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The lack of clear Congressional intent that avoidance powers apply to foreign transactions was the basis for prior decisions in the S. D. N. Y., which took the opposite view and held that the avoidance powers only apply domestically.  Those courts reasoned that if Congress intended for the avoidance powers to have extraterritorial reach, it could have so stated either the relevant statutory provisions governing avoidance actions under the Bankruptcy Code or in Sec. 541 itself.  In the current decision In re Lyondell, judge Gerber expressed his respectful disagreement to the extent that his decision is inconsistent with prior decisions recognizing the general presumption against extraterritoriality absent explicit language to the contrary. This ruling furthers uncertainty in the S. D. N. Y. as to whether transfers that occur abroad may be avoided in a Chapter 7 or 11 case.

The full memo is available here.

1 2 3 4