C.V. Perry Receivership Update - Part II: Bankruptcy Law Influence
The ongoing C.V. Perry receivership case reflects an interesting choice of state law insolvency procedures over federal bankruptcy proceedings. And yet, no doubt in part due to the sparseness of developed case law and statutory authority when it comes to Ohio receivership law, much has been borrowed from federal bankruptcy law.
As a Columbus bankruptcy attorney who often represents creditors, I find the C.V. Perry case quite interesting because the procedures and law that will be established during the course of this case are likely to have an impact for some years to come. If nothing else, Franklin County at least will have a roadmap for others contemplating receivership to follow.
A few months ago I wrote about how the C.V. Perry receivership was representative on what I saw as a mini-trend in choosing state court receivership over federal bankruptcy and some reasons that might be happening. In my last post, I provided more detailed information about the C.V. Perry receivership itself. In this post, I want to discuss some more of the events in the case and how the influence of federal bankruptcy law can be seen.
Proof of Claim Procedure. Although Ohio Rev. Code 1701.89(A) does refer to the "presentation and proof of all claims and demands against the corporation", the actual process to be followed is left rather vague. Moreover, there is no analogous provision in Chapter 1705 of the Ohio Revised Code applicable to limited liability companies. Under federal bankruptcy law, requiring creditors to make a written "proof of claim" is a key component to the administration of any bankruptcy case and Bankruptcy Rule 3002 and Bankruptcy Rule 3003 sets out exactly how and when this should be done.
Injunctive Relief in Form of a "Stay". Count VII of the Complaint seeks unspecified injunctive relief. However, the Amended Order goes further and in language very similar to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, provides:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all creditors, claimants, bodies politic, parties in interest, and all sheriffs, marshalls, and other officers, and their respective attorneys, servants, agents, and employees, and all other persons, firms and corporations be, and they hereby are, jointly and severally, enjoined and stayed from commencing or continuing any action at law or suit or proceeding in equity to foreclose any lien or enforce any claim against any of the Movants or their respective property, or against Martin Management, as receiver and liquidating trustee, in any court. All such entities are further stayed from executing or issuing or causing the execution or issuance out of any Court of any writ, process, summons, attachment, subpoena, replevin, execution, or other process for the purpose of impounding or taking possession of or interfering with, or enforcing any claim or lien upon any property owned by or in possession of Martin Management, as receiver and liquidating trustee, and from doing any act or thing whatsoever to interfere with Martin Management, as receiver and liquidating trustee, in the discharge of its duties in this proceeding with the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court over Movants' properties and said receiver and liquidating trustee. This Order shall be in full force and effect as of the date of its journalization with the Clerk of Court.
Creditors have also responded in a fashion similar to what they would do in a bankruptcy proceeding. One even entitled its pleading "Motion for Relief from Stay".
My point here is that ordinarily in cases in which injunctive relief is granted outside bankruptcy, the procedure is somewhat different than what seems to be happening in this case. Typically an interim temporary restraining order is first imposed for a limited period of time followed, generally after some kind of hearing or by agreement of the parties, by a preliminary injunction. Parties wanting the injunction removed usually ask that it be dissolved, not that the "stay" be lifted. Here, there is no indication that any hearing was ever held prior to the issuance of this Order.
What makes the issuance and continuance of that portion of the order appointing the receiver/liquidating trustee particularly interesting is that, as some creditors have pointed out, statutory authority doesn't really support such a blanket imposition of a stay. While Ohio Rev. Code 1701.89(A)(2) does allow the imposition of a "stay of the prosecution of any proceeding against the corporation or involving any of its property", Ohio Rev. Code 1705.45(B)(2) specifically states that "dissolution of a limited liability company does not... prevent the commencement of a proceeding by or against the company in its name..."
"Administrative Priority". One especially interesting concept borrowed from bankruptcy practice is the recognition of "administrative priorty" for certain claims. An intial Borrowing Order entered in late December authorizes the Receiver/Liquidating Trustee to borrow funds or purchase materials up to an aggregate amount of $5 million. It also provides that those extending credit in this way "shall be entitled to administrative priority distribution" for those amounts.
More recently in February, the Receiver/Liquidating Trustee filed a Motion for Authorization to Establish Fund for Administrative Fees, Costs and Operating Expenses which essentially seeks to surcharge creditors with liens on real estate to pay fees for the Receiver/Liquidating Trustee and his counsel, as well as other administrative expenses. Creditors have opposed this latest motion and some have pointed out that in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, attorneys' fees and other administrative priority claims are only paid out of the disposition of unencumbered assets.
The concept of "administrative priority" is a bankruptcy one spelled out in section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code. There is no comparable provision in the Ohio Revised Code. Here again, the sparseness of statutory authority and relative staleness of caselaw (most cases cited by any party are more than 50 years old and some date back before 1900) has led to importation of bankruptcy concepts into a state law insolvency proceeding.
The paucity of recent or extensive authority concerning receiverships in Ohio law has been both the advantage and drawback of choosing receivership over the more clearly delineated Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. At the conclusion of the C.V. Perry case, that will no longer be true. As the case proceeds, it will be interesting to see the extent to which bankruptcy concepts and procedures are imported.
