Mandatory Disclosure in Corporate Debt Restructuring via Schemes of Arrangement: A Comparative Approach

By Casey Watters (Bond University) and Wai Yee Wan (City University of Hong Kong)

Casey Watters
Wai Yee Wan

Creditors often face significant information asymmetry when debtor companies seek to restructure their debts. In the United Kingdom, it is mandatory for debtor companies seeking to invoke a court’s jurisdiction to restructure their debts via schemes of arrangement (schemes) to disclose material information in the explanatory statement. This information enables creditors to make an informed decision as to how to exercise their votes in creditors’ meetings. 

English schemes have been transplanted into common law jurisdictions in Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore. However, due to the differences in the shareholding structures and the kinds of debts prevalent in restructurings in the UK as compared to those in Hong Kong and Singapore, this transplantation gives rise to the question of whether the English-based scheme process adequately addresses information asymmetry in the local context. Drawing from the experiences of Hong Kong and Singapore, our paper, supported by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR, argues that there are three principal concerns in the current disclosure regimes: how debtors disclose the liquidation analysis or alternative to restructuring via schemes; how debtors disclose advisors’ fees; and the equality of provision of information in the scheme process. 

The key objective of mandatory disclosure for schemes parallels the objective of disclosure requirements for shareholder meetings under English corporate and securities laws:  reducing information asymmetry faced by the shareholders. Failure to make adequate disclosures to creditors can lead courts to refuse to approve the scheme. Mandatory information disclosure in the course of securing a vote on the restructuring plan also features prominently in Article 8 of the EU Directive on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks 2019/1023. 

However, there are specific risks in Hong Kong and Singapore that are either not present in the UK or not present to the same extent under traditional English schemes. First, shareholdings in listed companies in Hong Kong and Singapore are generally much more concentrated than in the UK. As a result, management’s interests are aligned with the controlling shareholders even when the company is “out of money.” In addition, schemes resolve all debts in Hong King and Singapore, rather than financial debts alone, as in the UK. Finally, retail investors have a significantly higher presence in debt instruments falling under the court’s jurisdiction. These different circumstances raise the question of whether the current disclosure regime sufficiently addresses risks arising from information asymmetry and provides the right incentives for debtors to disclose relevant and high-quality information for the creditors to make an informed decision when voting. 

While Hong Kong’s scheme framework has largely remained unchanged since its enactment, Singapore has amended its scheme framework to include several debtor-in-possession features of Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11), such as the availability of super-priority, cross-class cramdowns, and pre-packs. However, Singapore’s disclosure requirements continue to be largely based on English case law.

Drawing from the US approach towards disclosure in Chapter 11, we argue that disclosure of sufficient information on the company’s valuation should be a central focus of the explanatory statement and that the restructuring support agreement (RSA) should be carefully reviewed. We also argue for an ex ante approach to disclosure statements under schemes of arrangement at the stage in which the court decides rather to grant permission to convene the scheme meetings. As both Hong Kong and Singapore have sophisticated and experienced judiciaries, earlier involvement of the courts may provide greater confidence in the process for investors by compelling the disclosure of key financial information. 

In our analysis of the practice of schemes, we reviewed approved schemes involving listed companies in Hong Kong and Singapore for the five-year period covering 2015-2019.  We obtained information on disclosures from announcements made by listed companies, explanatory statements from publicly available sources, stock exchange websites, and information agents for bond documentation. Where possible, we compare the disclosures to creditors with the separate disclosures to shareholders published in shareholder circulars. We conclude that the disclosure requirements under the traditional English scheme model are insufficient to adequately address risks to investors and creditors in Hong Kong and Singapore. In order to provide investors with greater confidence in the scheme process, additional disclosure in the explanatory statement regarding the value of the company, and ex ante review of explanatory statements and RSAs are needed. 

The full paper can be accessed here

A version of this post first appeared on the Oxford Business Law Blog.

Loan Forgiveness as Basis for Fraudulent Transfer Claims

posted in: Chapter 11, fraudulent transfer | 0

By Jeffrey Cohen, Michael A. Kaplan, and Colleen M. Maker (Lowenstein Sandler)

Jeffrey Cohen
Michael A. Kaplan
Colleen M. Maker

In Loan Forgiveness as Basis for Fraudulent Transfer Claims, authors Jeffrey CohenMichael A. Kaplan, and Colleen M. Maker address fraudulent transfer litigation as a valuable weapon in the bankruptcy code arsenal, to target assets transferred or disposed of prior to bankruptcy with the potential to provide at least some recovery to creditors of the debtor’s estate. The article examines debt cancellation as an overlooked, but still potentially viable and valuable, basis for a fraudulent transfer cause of action.

Avoidance actions may include not only transfers with fraudulent intent, but also constructive fraud through loan forgiveness or debt cancellation. For example, if a company makes loans to subsidiaries and then formally or informally either writes off, forgives and cancels the loan prior to bankruptcy, that action has the same impact as a fraudulent transfer: creditors are left holding the bag while the beneficiary is unaffected and may even receive a windfall at the expense of the creditors.

Intercompany transfers are often considered within the ordinary course of business in a complex corporate structure, and loans to directors and officers are not rare. However, avoidance actions regarding forgiveness of debt are seldom brought due of issues of standing, resources, discovery, and cost weighed against the viability of the claim. Parties must assess whether the possibility of recovery outweighs the risks or if limited resources are better used elsewhere, perhaps through direct distribution to creditors. 

Chapter 11’s Descent into Lawlessness

By Lynn M. LoPucki (Security Pacific Bank Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law)

Lynn M. LoPucki

The bankruptcy courts that compete for big cases frequently ignore the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. This Article documents that lawlessness through a detailed examination of the court file in Belk, Inc.—a one-day Chapter 11—and a series of empirical studies.

Chapter 11’s lawlessness reached a new extreme in Belk. Belk filed in Houston on the evening of February 23, 2021. The court confirmed the plan at ten o’clock the next morning, and the parties consummated the plan that same afternoon. Almost none of Chapter 11’s procedural requirements were met. The court did not give creditors notice of the disclosure statement or plan confirmation hearings until after those hearings were held. Belk filed no list of creditors’ names and addresses, no schedules, no statement of financial affairs, and no monthly operating reports.  No creditors’ committee was appointed, no meeting of creditors was held, and none of the professionals filed fee applications. The ad hoc groups that negotiated the plan failed to file Rule 2019 disclosures. Because no schedules were filed, no proofs of claim were deemed filed. Only eighteen of Belk’s ninety-thousand creditors filed proofs of claim, and Belk apparently just made distributions to whomever Belk considered worthy. 

The procedural failures in Belk are just the tip of the iceberg.  The competing courts are ignoring impermissible retention bonuses, refusing to appoint mandatory examiners, failing to monitor venue or transfer cases, granting every request to reject collective bargaining agreements, and providing debtors with critical-vendor slush funds. The article is available here

Critical Vendor Order Insufficient to Protect Critical Vendors Against Preference Claims

By Nicholas A. Koffroth (Fox Rothschild)

Nicholas A. Koffroth

In Insys Liquidation Trust v. MeKesson Corporation (In re Insys Therapeutics, Inc.), No. 21-50176 (JTD), No. 21-50176, 2021 WL 3083325 (Bankr. D. Del. July 21, 2021), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware reminded practitioners to exercise caution when analyzing the scope of protections offered by critical vendor orders.  The order at issue in Insys Therapeutics provided that “[t]he Debtors are authorized, but not directed . . . to maintain and administer the Customer Programs” and that “[n]othing contained . . . in this Final Order is intended to be or shall be construed as . . . (c) a waiver of any claims or causes of action that may exist against any creditor or interest holder.”  These common provisions proved critical in the Court’s holding that “something more is required” to insulate critical vendors from preference liability.

In the opinion, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by a group of critical vendors for three reasons.  First, the Court held that preferential payments that occur before the entry of a critical vendor order cannot be protected by a subsequent authorization to pay outstanding prepetition claims unless specifically provided in the order.  Second, the permissive language of the critical vendor order did not support the vendors’ claim that the prepetition payments would necessarily have been authorized had they been made postpetition.  Third, the critical vendor order expressly preserved the estates’ claims against critical vendors.  Additionally, the Court analyzed and rejected application of the limited “critical vendor defense.”

The article discusses the Court’s holding in greater detail and offers practical considerations for practitioners. The full article is available here.

Courts in Puerto Rico Case Adopts Alternative Test to Find Settlement Agreements Were Executory

By John Beck and Jennifer Lee (Hogan Lovells)

John Beck
Jennifer Lee

A debtor can elect to either assume or reject an executory contract under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Because the Bankruptcy Code does not define “executory”, courts have historically overwhelmingly applied the “Countryman” test – which asks whether the contract parties have remaining unperformed obligations such that the failure of either party to complete performance would constitute a material breach of the agreement – to determine if a contract is executory.  In a recent decision, however, Judge Laura T. Swain, the district court judge presiding over the 2017 Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act proceedings, declined to utilize the Countryman test and adopted the alternative “functional approach” to determine whether the agreements at issue were executory. The “functional approach” focuses on the post-petition benefit to the debtor from assumption or rejection of a contract instead of the pre-petition obligations under the contract.  The decision is the latest among a string of recent cases that have relied on non-Countryman tests to determine whether a contract is executory, with the “functional approach” emerging as the prevailing alternative. Read the full article here.

Voting Rights Assignment Unenforceable, but Subordinated Creditor Lacked Standing to Participate in Chapter 11 Plan Confirmation Process

By Dan B. Prieto (Jones Day) and Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day)

Dan B. Prieto
Mark G. Douglas

In In re Fencepost Productions Inc., 629 B.R. 289 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas recently addressed the enforceability of a provision in a pre-bankruptcy subordination agreement under which a subordinated creditor assigned to a senior creditor its right to vote on any chapter 11 plan proposed for the borrower. The bankruptcy court ruled that such a provision is not enforceable because it conflicts with the Bankruptcy Code. In a twist, however, the court concluded that the subordinated creditor lacked “prudential standing” to participate in the confirmation process because it was extremely out-of-the-money and therefore had no stake in the outcome of the case, but was attempting to assert the rights of third parties.

Courts disagree over whether an assignment of plan voting rights in an intercreditor or subordination agreement is enforceable. Regardless of the particular approach adopted by a court on this issue, the growing consensus is that agreements that seek to limit or waive junior creditors’ voting rights must contain express language to that effect. The ruling in Fencepost adds yet another chapter to the ongoing debate on this issue.

 The Fencepost court’s conclusion that the subordinated creditor lacked prudential standing would appear to be driven in part by the facts of the case, which involved a subordinated, clearly out-of-the-money creditor intent upon impeding an otherwise consensual reorganization.

The Bankruptcy Code, however, expressly provides to the contrary by, among other things, giving every “party in interest” (including creditors and interest holders, without making an exception in cases where there is no value available for distribution to them), the right to appear and be heard “on any issue” in a chapter 11 case, the right to vote on a chapter 11 plan, and the right to object to confirmation of a plan. These provisions arguably indicate that Congress intended to modify or abrogate prudential standing requirements when it enacted the Bankruptcy Code. Moreover, the “rights” any out-of-the-money creditor or shareholder would be seeking to enforce by participating in the confirmation process are arguably their own, rather than the rights of third parties.

A logical extension of the rationale articulated in Fencepost is that clearly out-of-the-money creditors or shareholders of an insolvent corporation would never have prudential standing to participate in the chapter 11 plan confirmation process. That approach would be contrary to court rulings and general practice in many chapter 11 cases.

The full article can be accessed here.

Structuring and Practice for Aircraft Leases to Prevent Lease Payments from Being Clawed Back in a Lessee Bankruptcy

By Stewart B. Herman (Katten) and Timothy J. Lynes (Katten)

Stewart B. Herman
Timothy J. Lynes

In King v. Bombardier Aerospace Corporation et al., the trustee sought under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b) and 550(a) to have the lessor disgorge rent that the debtor lessee had paid to the lessor under an English-law aircraft lease during the prepetition preference period using funds advanced to the debtor by its shareholder. Pursuant to §547(b), the trustee argued that the debtor had made the payment for an antecedent debt; the loan balance on what was alleged to be disguised secured financing rather than a true lease. The lessor asserted (i) the trustee had not sufficiently shown the nature and amount of the antecedent debt as required under § 547(b)(2), (ii) under § 547(c)(4) the lessor had provided the debtor subsequent new value after the debtor made the payment, (iii) under § 547(c)(2) that the debtor had made the payment in the ordinary course of business, and (iv) that under the earmarking doctrine the payment should not be clawed back because the payment had been funded by a loan from a third party (the debtor’s shareholder). The court found (i) the trustee had not satisfactorily shown the nature and amount of the antecedent debt, (ii) the lessor had sufficiently shown it added subsequent new value to the debtors, (iii) the lessor had not sufficiently shown the payment was in the ordinary course of business, under either the subjective test or the objective test, and (iv) the lessor had not sufficiently shown facts to support an earmarking defense. The article concludes by offering suggestions for structuring leases to survive preference claims. The full article is available here.

What’s Done is Done: Third Circuit Upholds Equitable Mootness and Rules Out Possibility of Individualized Relief for Timely Objecting Party

By Robert Lemons (Weil) and Patrick Feeney (Weil)

Robert Lemons
Patrick Feeney

Over the past several years, certain circuits criticized the Equitable Mootness doctrine for its lack of statutory basis and effect of avoiding review of chapter 11 plans on the merits.  However, the Third Circuit recently held in In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. v. Hargreaves, Case No. 18-3084, 834 Fed. Appx. 729 (3d Cir. Jan. 6, 2021), that the Equitable Mootness doctrine is still alive and well.

 The Third Circuit rejected the appeal of Hargreaves, a creditor who timely objected to the chapter 11 plan and timely appealed the bankruptcy court’s entry of the plan’s confirmation order, because the plan was already substantially consummated and could not be unwound.  Further, the Third Circuit held that it could not grant Hargreaves “individualized relief” because such relief would violate Bankruptcy Code § 1123(a)(4)’s restriction on preferential treatment of class members and § 1129(b)(1)’s prohibition on unfair discrimination between classes. 

 In a concurring opinion, Judge Krause rejected the application of Equitable Mootness, finding the majority did not sufficiently analyze whether disparate treatment of creditors within a class is permissible on appeal when parties choose not to object to, or appeal confirmation of, the plan.  Judge Krause also noted that denial of the appeal on Equitable Mootness grounds precluded consideration of substantive arguments and development of the Third Circuit’s bankruptcy jurisprudence.  

While Judge Krause’s concurring opinion highlights difficulties plan objectors face when appealing plan confirmation, the majority opinion signals that Equitable Mootness is still a healthy doctrine in the Third Circuit.

The full article is available here.

Another Court Adopts Majority View in Approving Bankruptcy Trustee’s Use of Tax Code: Look-Back Period in Avoidance Actions

By Daniel J. Merrett (Jones Day) and Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day)

Daniel J. Merrett
Mark G. Douglas

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) to avoid fraudulent transfers is an important tool promoting the bankruptcy policies of equality of distribution among creditors and maximizing the property included in the estate. One limitation on this avoidance power is the statutory “look-back” period during which an allegedly fraudulent transfer can be avoided—two years for fraudulent transfer avoidance actions under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and, as generally understood, three to six years if the trustee or DIP seeks to avoid a fraudulent transfer under section 544(b) and state law by stepping into the shoes of a “triggering” creditor plaintiff.

The longer look-back periods governing avoidance actions under various state laws significantly expand the universe of transactions that may be subject to fraudulent transfer avoidance. Indeed, under a ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the look-back period in avoidance actions under section 544(b) may be much longer—10 years—in bankruptcy cases where the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or another governmental entity is the triggering creditor. In Mitchell v. Zagaroli (In re Zagaroli), 2020 WL 6495156 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2020), the court, adopting the majority approach, held that a chapter 7 trustee could effectively circumvent North Carolina’s four-year statute of limitations for fraudulent transfer actions by stepping into the shoes of the IRS, which is bound not by North Carolina law but by the 10-year statute of limitations for collecting taxes specified in the Internal Revenue Code.

Zagaroli does not break new ground on the power of a bankruptcy trustee or DIP to bring avoidance actions under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Nevertheless, the court’s endorsement of the majority approach on the availability of a longer look-back period in cases in which the IRS is a creditor is notable. Widespread adoption of this approach could significantly augment estate avoidance action recoveries.

The full article is available here.

The Aftermath of a Complicated Breakup: Third Circuit Holds Stalking Horse Bidder in Terminated Transaction May Assert Potential Administrative Expense Claim Notwithstanding Disallowance of Its Termination Fee

By Ronit J. Berkovich (Weil)

Ronit J. Berkovich

In a recent decision, In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7400 (3d Cir. 2021) (“EFH II”), the Third Circuit held that a stalking horse may assert an administrative expense claim under section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for certain transactional expenses, even when it is not entitled to a termination fee.

In EFH II, the debtors terminated a merger agreement with a stalking horse and the stalking horse applied for payment of a termination fee.  After the application was denied, the stalking horse filed an administrative expense application for costs incurred in attempting to complete the merger.  In response, various bondholders jointly filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment.  After the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted the bondholders’ motions, the Third Circuit ruled that the administrative claim should not have been denied without further factual inquiry because the stalking horse plausibly alleged that it benefited the estate by providing information, accepting risks, and paving the way for a later successful deal.

 In so holding, the Third Circuit applied a broad standard for pleading a plausible administrative claim under section 503(b)(1)(A).  Going forward, it may be harder to obtain denial of an administrative expense application in the Third Circuit without a discovery process and evidentiary hearing.  While this decision establishes an alternative means for stalking horses to recover certain transactional expenses, its actual impact remains to be seen, as parties can draft provisions in transactional documents to address the scope of recoverable administrative claims.

The full article is available here.

1 2 3 4 6