Forgetting to Include a Legal Description in the Mortgage Not Fatal in the Sixth Circuit

So does it make a difference if someone messes up and forgets to attach the exact legal description to a mortgage which then gets recorded?  It may depend on how specific the mortgage is in describing the parcel of real property. 

Now I thought this seemed like an easy question, but apparently we needed a Sixth Circuit opinion recently issued (and recommended for full publication) to tell us that as long as the property is identified with sufficient precision that you could actually locate it  in real life, the mortgage works as a valid lien on the property.  Thanks to Amy Bower (who represented the winner),  my Managing Partner here in the Columbus office of Plunkett Cooney for sharing this decision with me.  

In Argent Mortgage Company, LLC v. Drown, Case No. 08-4508 (6th Cir. August 25, 2009), the Court addressed the question of

whether a recorded mortgage that contains the street address of residential property - but not the legal description - is sufficient to preclude the setting aside of an other-wise mortgage in bankruptcy court.

Judge Hoffman originally ruled that the Chapter 7 Trustee could avoid the mortgage pursuant to section 544(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, relying heavily upon Stubbins v. American General Financial Services, Inc. (In re Easter), 367 B.R. 608 (Bankr. S.D.Ohio 2007), a decision by Judge Preston.  and caselaw discussed in that opinion, Judge Hoffman reasoned:

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court agrees with the Trustee that something more than the street address and permanent parcel number is necessary to provide constructive notice of the Mortgage to a hypothetical good-faith purchaser for value.  This is so because even if a third party had record notice of the existence of this Mortgage, neither the parcel number nor the street address , nor both together, would lead that third party to discover precisely what property is covered by the Mortgage.  Both a street address and a permanent parcel number may refer to a geographic area that contains more or less than what the morgagor intended to encumber.

The district court reversed and the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court's decision.  I agree with the Sixth Circuit in this situation when it notes

Mortgaging part rather than all of a single-dwelling residential subdivision property  is far enough outside the ordinary course of business that a reasonable prospective purchaser should assume that an ambiguous mortgage likely intended to encompass the entire residential lot at issue  

GM Follows NYC Dealership Affiliate to Obtain NYC Venue for Its Bankruptcy

Just before 8 AM this morning (June 1), General Motors was busy sneaking its way into a Southern District of New York bankruptcy court (more on the forum shopping aspect of this from the Credit Slips blog) in hopes of getting the same accomodating treatment as Chrysler has just experienced.  Here's GM's press release on the filing, Board of Directors statement, statement of Fritz Henderson, and FAQ about the filing.  Here's the transcript of the White House press briefing late last night.

I previously suggested that a NYC filing was not possible for GM because it had no New York subsidiaries and was itself a Delaware corporation.  What I failed to anticipate was the creativity of GM's lawyers who simply went out and got a company-owned DEALERSHIP called Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc. , also a Delaware corporation, which is located in Harlem ,to make the first filing.  Talk about the bankruptcy equivalent of gerrymandering!!!

So anyway here's the skinny on this morning's filing:  Everyone is represented by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP led by Stephen KarotkinJudge Robert E. Gerber will be presiding

First filing opening the gates of the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court paradise:

Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc.,  Case No. 09-13558  For more information about this entity, click here

 Followed by GENERAL MOTORS itself, Case No. 09-50026

And bringing up the rear:

Saturn LLC, Case No. 09-50027

Saturn Distribution Corporation, Case No. 09-50028 

All filings are to be made in the General Motors case and just to show you how fast everything is moving, take a look at the Notice for the "First Day" hearing scheduled for 4 PM today.

>>>>>> If you don't have access to PACER, you can follow the pleadings and get other information about the case from the claims trading agent website.  As in the Chrysler bankruptcy, generally this will as up to date, or nearly so as the PACER docket.

As of 11 AM, the sale motion had yet to be filed, but soon will be [UPDATE: Almost 2;30 PM and here it is - apparently too big a file to upload - It's Docket #92 and you're own your own til I figure out how to get that technical detail fixed]

UPDATE: Here's the trasncript of President Obama's remarks on GM's bankruptcy filing, as well as a "Fact Sheet" setting forth the Administration's view as to how this should all play out.

If you're sufficiently interested, here's a link to  streaming video of GM's news conference featuring Fritz Henderson.

>>>> and now for some other commentary:

  • The Huffington Post blog has a great summary of events leading up to the filing, impact of the bankruptcy filing and what may happen next.
  • The Chapter 11 Library.com blog has some interesting excerpts fromFritz Henderson's Affidavit made in connection with the filing: click here and here.  Personally, i liked the part where he says:

Both directly and as a customer of literaly thousands of businesses that supply GM, the Company played a significant role in the development of a strong middle class in the United States... GM has also been instrumental in the United States becoming the world's major economic force.

            Guess now's not the time for modesty...

Chrysler 363 Sale Approved - Judge G Says Not a Sub Rosa Plan

Late Sunday night (11:15 PM to be precise) Judge Gonzalez handed down his 47-page Opinion approving the sale of most of Chrysler's assets that had any value to Fiat.SpA .  I haven't had a chance to read amd digest it yet, but it does address the sub rosa plan issue head-on.  It does not appear to deal directly with the rejection of executory contracts such as the dealer franchises which was a critical part of the terms ot the contemplated sale, but presumably that won't be far behind.   [UPDATE: Here is Final Order Approving Sale].  The Opinion also purports to give Fiat the protection of 363(m) which make an effective appeal difficult.   Presumably, the actual Order from which any appeal would be made will be entered sometime today.

President Obama reportedly applauded the decisionsaying it gave Chrysler a "new lease on life" and would allow it to "successfully emerge from bankruptcy as a new stronger, more competititve company for the future."   Click here for President Obama's complete statement.

Chrysler has filed a Motion seeking an immediate and expedited appeal DIRECTLY to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, bypassing both the BAP and District Court where an appeal would normally head.  Supportive pleadings have also been filed by Fiat and the UAW.  there has been at least one objection. 

.... Stay tuned - the fun's not over yet.

UPDATE: Appeal time has been reduced from customary 10 days to just 4 which would end on Friday June 5.

363 Bankruptcy Sale FAQ - What You Need to Know to Understand What's Going On with Chrysler and GM

I've been writing a lot lately about the Chrysler bankruptcy and will probably be writing a lot more about the GM bankruptcy to come (it's happening Monday - mid-day press conference in NYC).  As a creditor oriented bankruptcy attorney in a Michigan based firm with more than twenty plus years of experience, I just can't help myself - this really is the biggest thing to come down the pike in my professional life as far as actual relevance to the real world.  I've even written a fair amount about the 363 sale process itself -- and for those of you wanting more detail about how all this works, please visit -- but I thought it might be helpful to address the basic questions about 363 sales in general (and with respect to Chrysler and GM in particular) in one place with, hopefully, a minimum of legalease... 

 

1.                  What is a “363 sale”?

It is a sale of assets in a bankruptcy case, generally in a Chapter 11 reorganization, so named because of the section of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with the procedure. A discrete asset or assets, such as a particular piece of equipment or parcel of real estate, may be sold pursuant to 11 USC §363, or, especially recently, several bankruptcy courts will authorize a sale including all, or substantially all, of the bankrupt company’s assets. The assets will be conveyed to the purchaser free and clear of any liens or encumbrances. Those liens or encumbrances will then be attached to the net proceeds of the sale and paid as ordered by the Bankruptcy Court.

 

2.                  What is the purpose of a 363 sale?

According to the legislative history, the purpose of section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code is to “define the rights and powers of the [bankruptcy] trustee [or Debtor] with respect to the use, sale, or lease of property and the rights of other parties that have interests in the property involved.” It permits the disposition of assets of the bankrupt company outside the ordinary course of business  

 

3.                  What is the process for a 363 sale?

The bankrupt company (known as the Debtor or Debtor-in-Possession) or bankruptcy trustee in chapter 7 cases must file a Motion with the Bankruptcy Court in which the case is pending seeking the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed sale. Opponents of the proposed sale will have a designated response period determined by the pertinent Bankruptcy Court (often 10 or 20 days) in which to file written objections to the proposed sale. Frequently, although not always, this time period will be shortened considerably and be little more than a few days.

 

The Bankruptcy Code then requires “notice and a hearing” on the Motion at which each side can present its argument. Although an “actual” hearing is not required, typically there will be one. Then the Bankruptcy Judge considers the arguments made and either approves the sale as outlined by the Motion or denies approval. If the sale is approved, then the Debtor will proceed with making it a reality.

           

4.                  What is the timeline for a typical 363 sale?

A 363 sale may take anywhere from a few days to several months to complete, depending upon whether there is opposition to the sale and how many parties are interested in purchasing the assets being offered. Generally speaking, the process can be completed in a few weeks.

 

5.                  What information does the motion seeking approval of a 363 sale have to contain?

The Motion or exhibits attached to it must provide detailed information about all of the essential terms and conditions of the contemplated sale, including the identity of the prospective purchaser, purchase price, assets to be sold, and the like. Frequently, the actual Purchase Agreement between the Debtor and prospective purchaser (sometimes referred to as a “stalking horse”) is attached to the Motion as an exhibit.

 

Generally, the Motion will also contained specific detailed provisions regarding the timing and manner applicable to the submission of any competing offers for the assets to be sold.

It is also possible that the Motion will simply seek approval of a auction or other sales procedure to determine who the successful purchaser will be.

 

6.                  What are the requirements for approval of a 363 sale?

 The Bankruptcy Court must determine:

  • Whether the terms of the sale constitute the highest and best offer for the assets to be sold;
  • Whether the negotiations concerning the terms and conditions of the proposed sale were conducted at arm’s length;
  • Whether the sale is in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate and its creditors
  • Whether the purchaser has acted in good faith and the sale itself is being made in good faith [we’re big on “good faith” in bankruptcy law]

Unless the answer to all of these is “yes”, the sale will not be approved. In addition, there are several other requirements designed to protect the interests of creditors who have previously been granted lien on the assets to be sold as collateral for loan or other credited previously given to the Debtor. Essentially, if the purchase price is not enough to pay all of these creditors in full, the sale cannot be approved over the objection of the creditor unless applicable non-bankruptcy law could force the creditor to accept the situation. Because junior lienholders sometimes do not get paid in state court foreclosures, it has been generally assumed that this requirement can be met fairly easily.  

 

7.                  Who decides whether a 363 sale is appropriate?

The bankruptcy judge presiding over the case will determine if the requirements for approval of a 363 sale have been met.

 

8.                  How is a 363 sale different from a plan of reorganization?

It is sometimes argued that the approval of a 363 sale of substantially all of a bankrupt company’s assets early in a bankruptcy will have the practical effect of deciding many important issues that would ordinarily arise in due course during the bankruptcy proceeding and be addressed as part of the plan confirmation process.  

 

A sale of assets in bankruptcy can often be accomplished more quickly with a 363 sale rather than in the context of a plan of reorganization.  A 363 sale requires only the approval of the Bankruptcy Judge while a plan of reorganization must be approved by a substantial number of creditors and meet certain other requirements to be “confirmed.” A plan of reorganization is much more comprehensive than a 363 sale in addressing the overall financial situation of the Debtor and how its exit strategy from bankruptcy will affect creditors. 

 

Additional statutory protections for creditors and greater emphasis on valuation and feasibility of the post-sale business operations made possible by the sale also exist in the case of a plan of reorganization. In addition, there are also statutory notice periods entailing several weeks applicable to the plan confirmation process that cannot be shortened (other than possibly in the context of a prepackaged bankruptcy).

  

A proposed plan of reorganization is a lengthy and extremely detailed document which classifies the claims of various sorts of creditors into designated “classes” and then prescribes various “treatment” concerning how those claims will be dealt with. The Bankruptcy Code requires that the proposed Plan of Reorganization be accompanied by a “Disclosure Statement” similar in purpose and appearance with a prospectus used in the sale of stock and securities. The Disclosure Statement explains how the debtor came to be in bankruptcy and must provide "adequate information" about a plan and its implementation and consequences such that a hypothetical investor would be able "to make an informed judgment about the plan".    

 

9.                  What is a “sub rosa” plan? 

A “sub rosa plan” is what opponents of a 363 sale may call it if they believe the terms and conditions of the proposed 363 sale extend well beyond what they believe is the meaning and purpose of Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. The argument here is that except in the context of highly perishable goods, a sale of substantially all of a company’s assets must only be done in the context of, and with the protections of creditors inherent in, the plan confirmation process and a 363 sale is intended only for more piecemeal disposition of assets.

 

10.              What happens to creditors after a 363 sale occurs?

Once a 363 sale has been consummated and the purchase price paid, the bankruptcy court will decide how the proceeds of sale are allocated among secured creditors with liens on the assets sold. In the event additional proceeds exist, they will be allocated to unsecured creditors and other claimants in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

 

11.              What is a “stalking horse”? 

A “stalking horse” is the initial prospective buyer willing to set forth specific price and terms for the purchase of the bankrupt company’s asset or assets. The prospective purchaser usually negotiates for payment of a break-up or topping fee to it in the event it does not wind up being the approved purchaser to ensure that any competing bid is meaningfully more valuable to the bankrupt company.  

 

12.              What is a “topping fee” or “break-up fee”? 

A “topping fee” or break-up fee” is a specified amount to be paid to a stalking horse in the event that it is not the successful bidder for the assets. The theory is that it will compensate the stalking horse for certain “due diligence” it undertook and ensure that any competing bid is meaningfully more valuable.

 

13.              What are “bidding procedures”?

“Bidding Procedures” are the procedural rules proposed by the Debtor concerning the process and form by which offers for the asset or assets to be sold should be made by parties other than the “stalking horse”, if any. They are often included as part of the 363 Motion as a means of keeping the process orderly and avoiding chaos, but are sometimes seen by other prospective purchasers as designed to chill competing offers by imposing onerous procedural requirements. 

 

14.              What is a “credit bid”?

A “credit bid” occurs when a secured creditor can bid up to the amount of the debt owed it by the Debtor for the purchase price of the assets to be sold without having to come out of pocket for any actual cash. The difference between the amount owed and the credit bid will then become the amount of the lienholder’s unsecured claim.  

 

15.              Is there any recourse after a Bankruptcy Court approves a 363 sale? 

An Order approving a 363 sale can be appealed either to the applicable U.S. District Court or the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the applicable U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, if there is one. Certain statutory provisions have limited the ability of any successful appeal to unwind the transaction, but more recent cases have raised some questions about the proper interpretation of those provisions. 

 

16.              How are the Chrysler and GM bankruptcy 363 sales the same or different from the ordinary 363 sale? 

The Chrysler and likely GM contemplated 363 sales are considerably more complex than a typical 363 sale and involve a number of other provisions adjusting relationships with various creditors such as dealers and suppliers that would more often be found in a plan of reorganization. They are also proceeding much more rapidly than would ordinarily be the case.

 

PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS BLOG ABOUT CHRYSLER AND GM BANKRUPTCIES:

 

Chrysler/GM Bankruptcy Quick Update - Essentially Stay Tuned

In case you're wondering what's happened to Chrysler, the answer is: we don't know yet.  Here's a good Q&A prepared by AP about the whole Chrysler/GM mess that are very helpful in understanding what's happening .  And here's a bit more slanted analytical approach to what's going on. 

CHRYSLER 

Some early news reports suggest that Chrysler's got in the bag as far as getting approval of its so-called 363 sale (if we were really paying any attention to the Bankruptcy Code, there's no possible way this involved a plan of action would qualify as a 363 sale, but at least in this case, this may be water over the dam by now).  However we're now in Day Two  of the hearing on the Sale Motion and expected to go late (which by the way is something I've always admired about bankruptcy judges - they are always ready to conduct hearings into well into the evening if the situation merits it... and it doesn't have to be a Chrysler or GM case for them to do it.)

For summaries of what's been going on with the Chrysler hearing , click here and here)

Some reports have the judge overruling everything as early as tonight (Thursday), but i don't really see that.  At this point, it does appear likely that any ruling approving the sale would be immeidately appealed.  So while the judge undoubtedly has a goodly portion of his desicion already written (there's probably two versions, one approving the sale and the other denying it), I'd expect him to wait at least until morning.  Plus I'm not convninced the hearing won't go into Friday anyway.  And notwithstanding all the hue and cry from Chrysler and its attorneys that TIME IS OF THE VERY ESSENCE and every moment 's delay is excruciatingly harmful, seems like Judge Gonzalex would want to be seen as really considering all the testimony he's heard.  All of which suggests to me a weekend relase or possibly even a Monday morning release of his decision and opinion. 

GM

As far as GM, documents submitted to the SEC and news reports  (also click here) suggest that its Chapter 11 filing won't come until Monday, but that GM may have made some headway with the bondholders..

For more on where things stand for GM, click here and here. GM seems to have been making a number of very sensible preparations lately for a company contemplating bankruptcy - it almost seems like they actually do have an overall plan which includes not just a strategy, but also the tactics to get there.

Lots could happen with GM in the next 72 hours or so.  Whatever news reports you see or read or likely to be behind almost as soon as you see or hear them

But here's my very quick update on where things are on this.  SO it's looking like MONDAY could be a VERY BIG DAY in all of this.

 

Chrysler Bankruptcy Mid/Late May Roundup and Timeline: Lots to Watch in the Coming Days

For anyone thinking the important part of the Chrysler bankruptcy is just about over, take a peek at the 25-page Notice of Agenda on Matters Scheduled for Hearing on May 20, 2009 which also helpfully lists the various objections filed so far to particular Motions filed by the Debtor.  In addition, as of today, more than 900 separate pleadings have already been filed (in the two weeks since Chrysler filed its bankruptcy petition) and many are unresolved at this point.  One thing is for sure, however - whatever happens in the Chrysler bankruptcy case this week and next is going to make a BIG difference -- so try to pay attention for a few days

MAY 19 is a critical day because that is the deadline for filing an objection to the sale itself.   

MAY 20 (the day before my 50th birthday) is an equally HUGE day for that is the day by which any competing bids for the purchase of Crhysler's assets as described in its Motion.must be submitted.  And of course there are hearings on that day on all those other matters listed in the aforementioned Agenda.

Then, on MAY 27, the actual hearing on whether the sale extravaganza proposed by Chrysler will be permitted to go forward as contemplated will occur.  There are already several "limitied objections' of one sort and another filed by several different sorts of parties.  It could be the proverbial case of the "1000 cuts" that does Chrsyler's grandiose plans in - we'll have to wait and see, 

One of the more interesting objections/challenges to the proposed sale (and attendant bells and whistles in the form of asumption/rejection of contracts) was filed just yesterday (yes in this day and age of electronic filing, you can even file pleadings on the weekends from the comfort of your laptop) as a "Statement' by the Chrysler National Dealer Council.   It purports to set forth certain facts which the Council believes the Court should take into account when considering the Motion and claims:

  1. Dealers produce revenue, not expense for Chrysler.
  2. Dealers absorb inventory risks.
  3. Dealers invest in facilities and customer service.
  4. Maintaining the dealership network is essential to Chrysler's future.

Basic concept is that dealerships are a positive force and shouldn't just be kicked to the curb.  Not really any bankruptcy law arguments here, but hey, since we don't appear to be following its provisions anyway (also click here for a similar viewpoint), why not give the political counter-argument.

Closest to home, Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray has filed a Limited Objection on behalf of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation which also takes a "consequences of approval" approach to challenging the sale as currently contemplated..  His press release indicates that the objection was made "in an attempt to protect Ohio's worker compensation system".  The Limited Objection itself is short and to the point and contends:

  • Leaving Chrysler's Ohio workers' compensation liabilities in Old Chrysler is likely to result in Ohio's Bureau of Workers' Compensation picking up the tab because Old Chrysler won't have enough money to pay these obligations.  This would be a "devastating blow" to the fundamental structure of the whole system and could harm both other self-insured Ohio employers as well as workers.
  • If the sale goes through as contemplated, Chrysler Newco won't be eligible for self-insured status.in Ohio which I think means it would cost it more money to operate in Ohio (to which I suppose one answer is well, we weren't planning on continuing to operate in your State anyway.) 

>>>> One interesting thing that had me scratching my head was the Pro Hac Vici Motion to be allowed to participate in the case filed by Victoria Garry, the Assistant Attorney General handling the matter who I am sure is a very good lawyer.  She says she is admitted to the bars of the State of Ohio, Sixth Circuit, and Eastern and Western Districts of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court  - only thing is that in Ohio there is no Eastern and Western District for Bankruptcy Court; only Southern and Northern. 

Oh yeah, there was this Motion to get rid of a bunch of dealerships effective June 9.  Objections are due May 26 and a hearing is set for June 3.  Here's Chrysler's press release on the subject and the exhibit listing the unlucky dealers.  The dealers are located all acorss the nation (well I think Alaska might have escaped) and more than forty (of the 789) are located here in Ohio. 

  • For an unsual perspective on the dealership closings, visit this Small Town Chrysler... Memories Served post on the Zero Hedge blog which has the interesting tagline "On a long enough timeline, the survivial rate for everyone drops to zero."

So that's some of the most recent highlights of the Chrysler bankruptcy saga and what to look for the rest of the month.  Maybe, just maybe, the fat lady hasn't yet sung.

P.S. One of these days I will get back to the old beat and stop writing so much about Chrysler and GM, but that may not be for a while.  I'll at least try to slip in some nobankruptcy posts along the way.

Alas,Bankruptcy Law, We Knew Ye Well - Consequences of Chrysler's 363 Sale

They say that "hard cases make bad law".  And that's never been more true than in the current Chrysler (and soon to follow, GM) bankruptcy.  In the practice of bankruptcy law, we really do talk a lot about what's "fair and equitable".  And having a transaction as complex as that proposed by Chrysler -- or at least the bidding procedures designed to make any other alternative near impossible -- approved in a matter of days seems to me to turn this fundamental underlying value of bankruptcy law and practice on its head.

When I started law school, I had no idea I would become a creditor-oriented bankruptcy lawyer in Central Ohio.  Having now been one for more years than a lady cares to count, I've always felt that bankruptcy law was relatively internally consistent in comparison with other areas of law.  And it seemed to make sense and strike a balance between debtors and their creditors.  Up to now, once you understood the basic fundamental principles, concepts, and underlying values of bankruptcy law and practice, you could often reason your way to what the applicable rule would be even if you couldn't remember the exact statutory provisions.  And that has always seemed good to me. 

Now, in the name of a perceived (and perhaps, even actual) urgency and expediency, the Chrysler (and soon to be GM) bankruptcy are perverting and destroying that unifying fabric of bankruptcy law.  Others have posted on some of the damage being done, most notably Steve Jakubowski of The Bankruptcy Litigation Blog who asks "Will the 'Absolute Priority Rule' Kill the Sale?" and thoughtfully analyzes (and has deservedly received a lot of notice for his post) whether the Chrysler sale is "Testing the Limits of Section 363 Sales"

For me, it is the desecretion of the process of achieving "confirmation" of a "plan of reorganization" that bothers me the most.  Instead of requiring this process to play out, Judge Gonzalez appears to be allowing Chrysler to bypass it entirely, thereby corrupting the entire "363 sale" procedure. The"preliminary sale order", and especially the "Bidding Procedures" it approves, are tantamount to a"plan of reorganization", but alleviate Chrysler's need to comply with certain  procedures required in that situation.

Why is this bad?  Because it essentially wipes out the whole plan confirmation process.  I am sure there will be an effort to say that this (and perhaps GM as well if it also goes this route) present unique and special circumstances.  And they probably do.  However, any business bankruptcy debtor attorney worth his or her salt will now emphatically assert  -- as Chrysler's lawyers have -- that there is simply no time to follow the lengthier statutory plan confirmation procedures and that the value of the business is drastically depreciating with every day's delay.  They will also insist  -- as Chrysler's lawyers have -- that nothing will do but to require any bidders to mark up their proposed Purchase Agreement.  It might also encourage to wait to file until it absolutely positively IS that sort of emergency situation.   

And perhaps the most tantalizing of all Chrysler's arguments is that bankruptcy is all about the debtor and should be interpreted in whatever way is most likely to keep the debtor from having to liquidate --

in a business reorganization case, among all the other policies served by specific provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, this fundamental objective of preserving the debtor's businss as a going concern is paramount.

Now that's a principal every debtor can get behind and use to justify almost anything.   

>>>> How often debtors succeed with these arguments and tactics will make a big difference in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process for years to come.

Once upon a time, a 363 sale was reserved for disposing of certain selected assets.  As time went on, it became more common to also use it when selling all of the assets of a company.  But it was still mostly, if not entirely, the SALE OF ASSETS,  No assumption of leases and contracts or other fancy stuff.

If a debtor wanted to load up a proposed 363 sale with all sorts of bells and whistles -- as Chrysler has -- it had to file a proposed "Plan of Reorganization", accompanied by a "Disclosure Statement", instead, explaining how the plan for exiting bankruptcy would work.  Section 1123 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth what the plan must contain.  Section 1125 requires the Disclosure Statement  to provide "adequate information" about a plan and its implementation and consequences such that a hypothetical investor would be able "to make an informed judgment about the plan".    

Once a proposed plan and Disclosure Statement are filed,  Bankruptcy Rule 3017 requires at least 25 days notice of a hearing to determine if the Disclosure Statement is satisfactory. If it is, the plan and Disclosure Statement are circulated to all creditors who then have an opportunity to vote on the plan.  For each "class", i.e. grouping, section 1126 requires that creditors holding more than half of the claims in number and at least two-thirds in amount must vote to "accept" the plan.  Another 25 days must go by before the "confirmation" hearing can be held.  When that day comes, the debtor must deal with any objections to the plan such questions about feasibility and meet the requirements of section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code. in order to have the plan successfully "confirmed".

Is that a lot of work?  You bet!  And it's one reason so-called prepackaged bankruptcies (prepacks to those in the biz) became popular as a way to at least cut down on the amount of time. 

But what it also does is give those who would be most affected by the debtor's bankruptcy exit plan time and information to evaluate the course advocated by the debtor.  It also requires a fairly broad base of support for the debtor's proposal.  Unlike a 363 sale in which an 800 pound gorilla like Chrysler and its high powered attorneys can quite literally steamroll over smaller and in this case perhaps not entirely organized yet creditors, the plan confirmation process recognizes and allows these parties more of a chance to participate.  Granted, they may still be largely ignored, but at least collectively they do have at least some voice. 

It's possible that the sale might still be rejected on these sorts of grounds -- technically a hearing on the Sale Motion itself doesn't occur until May 27 -- but it seems a little silly to allow bidding to move forward only to reject the product of those activites.

American law and society have always recognized the importance of individuals and have many safeguards to protect individual rights.  What I fear most is that the legacy of the Chrysler/GM bankruptcies will be a bankruptcy process left in tatters.  And somehow less "fair"

Chrysler Meets Bankruptcy - The Reality Show... And We're Just Getting Started!

So it's been SIX whole days (counting the Petition Date) now that Chrysler LLC has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, there's been two hearings before the bankruptcy judge, and even Chrysler isn't claiming anything of any true lasting importance has been determined so far.  Its latest press release  spills as much ink describing the company as it does trumpheting the  interim approval  by the Bankruptcy Court of DIP (aka debtor-in-possession) financing and permission to use "cash collateral" (i.e. proceeds from collection of accounts receivable and disposition of other collateral)  And as bankruptcy insiders know, if you don't get these pretty quick after you file, the case will soon be DOA.    

Center Stage - The 363 Motion

The 363 Sale Motion, a 250 page submission in total, was  filed the evening of Sunday, May 2.  For an excellent concise summary of the contemplated timeline (surprise!! it's more than two weeks!) and transactions encompassed in the proposed sale, visit "Chrysler Seeks  the ultimate 363 Sale as the Treasury Department Dictates the Pace" posted by Stephen Sathers at his A Texas Bankruptcy Lawyer's Blog

Even the Motion's title sounds like there's a lot to do.  Leaving off the begining part referencing a bunch of Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules, the Motion indicates that it seeks

(i) AN ORDER (A) APPROVING BIDDING PROCEDURES AND BIDDER PROTECTIONS FOR THE SALE OF ALL OF THE DEBTORS' ASSETS AND (B) SCHEDULING A FINAL SALE HEARING  AND APPROVING THE FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE THEREOF; AND (II) AN ORDER (A) AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE DEBTOR'S' ASSETS, FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS, CLAIMS, INTERESTS AND ENCUMBRANCES, (b) AUTHORIZING THE ASSUMPTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND RELATED PROCEDURES, AND (C) GRANTING CERTAIN RELATED RELIEF  

  • The Summary of the transaction (well, really transactionS, plural), found beginning at the bottom of page 25, is 6 1/2 pages alone.
  • The Motion itself is 52 pages
  • The Purchase Agreement, attached as an exhibit, is nearly 100 pages long, even excluding the multiple signature pages, and that  DOES NOT include any exhibits to the Purchase Agreement
  • The proposed Bidding Procedure Order is more than 25 pages, not counting various forms of proposed notices
  • And then there's the additional 35-page supporting Memorandum of Law 

And Trying to Steal the Scene, the Objections....

>>>>>  so with all that, it's probably not too surprising that a few Objections to the proposed sale and otherwise have been filed.  Many fall back on the old chestnuts that bankruptcy lawyers always bring out in these situations and which to me seem particularly apt for the current circumstances - namely:

  • due process requires that we be given more time to figure out what's been proposed and figure out whether we like it and if not, why 
    • things are just moving too fast
    • we're going to need more time to get organized here
  • the debtor has stacked the proposed bidding procedures to favor the initial "stalking horse" , thereby making it exceedingly and unreasonably difficult for anyone else to participate

The Biggie by the NonTARP LendersThe earliest and most interesting  (in the sense that this is one to watch) objection to the bidding procedures and proposed 363 sale are the pleadings filed by a group calling itself the Non-TARP Lenders  (would that be a good name for a band?  I'm thinking that just "TARP Lenders" sounds like it has more promise).  These include  the initial "preliminary" objection filed May 4, followed by a "First Supplemental" objection filed today.  in addition to making the sort of objections referenced above  - which i really do think have lots of merit in this case -- the objections also contend that because of the number and complexity of actions and transactions involved, Chrysler is impermissibly trying to get what is really a "disguised" 'sub rosa plan of reorganization approved . 

This is an important objection and basically complains that Chrysler is trying to do a comprehensive plan of reorganization without complying with the procedures and protections for creditors which would usually accompany that process.  And while it's not specifically mentioned, that absolutely WOULD slow things down given that there are statutory minimum 25 day periods for circulation of a "Disclosure Statement" as well as mandatory hearings that would almost certainly be fierce brawls.  WATCH THIS ISSUE as a ruling on it could completely transform the Chapter 11 process for even the most humble and ordinary Chapter 11 out here in the fly-over states those of us who live here call the Midwest.

Other Objections to Sale.  There are also some objections by vendors (click here for one of them) focusing on on the part of the propsed sale where supply contracts with them are to be sold to Fiat or whoever the successful purchaser is.  According to these objections, the new purchaser would have up to 90 days to decide whether to assume of reject the contract, but the supplier would still be obligated to deliver goods during this period.  There's also one by Plast-o-Foam whcih appears to deal with reclamation claims with respect to goods recently supplied to Chrysler, but not paid for. 

Objections Apropo  of Nothing.  Then there's a new objection today by Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC regarding the part of the deal where Chrysler wants to enter into a financing arrangement with GMAC Master Financial Services.  According to the Objection, Debtor Chrysler won't show them the Term Sheet even thought they would be directly affected.  Sounds like the sort of thing any sensible debtor would not want to be distracted by.

And now, quite literally in the last hour or so while I've been writing this post, a Motion for Adequate Protection by CSX Transportation , Inc., a rail carrier concerned about its status, has been filed   The Motion seeks adequate protection for its "common carrier" lien which it alleges can prime security interests.

>>>>>>>  These are only the highlights in the last couple of days.  And, really, the bankruptcy process and players aren't  even warmed up yet.  Everyone's in for a heckuva a rollercoaster of a ride!

EXTRA! EXTRA! Get Your Chrysler Bankruptcy Info Here!

When you think the Chrysler bankruptcy is one of the most intellectually fascinating things ever to come down the pike ('cept maybe the coming GM extravaganza) and there's more interest amongst the general public in the swine, aka H1N1, flu, you know you're a purebreed bankruptcy law wonk.  For those of like persuasion or who just want a handy reference guide, here's the basic 411 on the Chrysler bankruptcy:

  • We must of course begin with the Chrysler's press release.
  • In what might be seen as a dry run for a GM filing in about a month, Chrysler LLC and many of its subsidiaries and affilated companies filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 30, 2009  - which now becomes the "Petition Date", an important dividing line -- in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 09-50002.  After only one day, there were already more than 130 pleadings filed.  By Sunday afternoon, the Court's docket sheet shows 189 pleadings.  
    • For those with PACER access, the Bankruptcy Court has established a separate URL for Chrysler pleadings
    • For those without access to PACER, the case can be followed directly by visiting the Chrysler Restructuring website which contains a docket containing PDFs of all of the court pleadings, as well as  press releases by the company, and information and FAQ for various sorts of creditors and stakeholders.   For those living under a rock for the past few months, it also has this useful Chapter 11 Fact Sheet
  • The case has been assigned to Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez whose biographical information is available on the website for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  He joined the bench in 1995 and previously handled the bankruptcies of Enron and WorldCom simultaneously.  For more information about Judge Gonzalez, click here.
  • Chrysler will be represented by the international law firm of Jones Day, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, led by Corinne Ball out of the firm's New York office.  Click here for a recent interview with Ms. Bell. 
  • The Chrysler bankruptcy petition is fairly unremarkable except that it includes identification of the Fifty Largest Unsecured Creditors instead of the usual Twenty Largest .
  • For those wanting an in-depth overview of how Chrysler sees the game plan, the Affidavit of Ronald E. Kolka in Support of First Day Pleadings is a "must'" read.
  • More than TWENTY "first day" motions were filed.  Sparing you the long technical description, these essentially dealt with the following:
    •   Procedural
      • Joint Administration of bankruptcies of all Chrysler entities.  Intended to increase efficiencies.  Cases not "substantively consolidated" and debts and creditors of each entity remain separate.  GRANTED
      • Reassurance regarding application of automatic stay and related provisions of Bankruptcy Code      
      • Seeking permission to file consolidated list of Top Fifty Unsecured Creditors instead of each entity having to file their own Top Twenty
      • Appointment of Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as Claims and Noticing Agent  - basically an outsourcing of the procedural aspects of proof of claim filing and general noticing; very common in large bankruptcies 
      • Seeking to extend deadline for filing bankruptcy schedules and statement of financial affairs '[d]ue to the substantial size, complexity and geographic reach of their operations and the press of business preceding the filing of these cases" -- very common in large cases; nornally these would be due within fifteen days after the Petition Date (or May 15, 2009).
      • Procedures for the assertion and resolution of claims involving recently delivered goods and reclamation claims
      • Compensation arrangements for professionals, i.e counsel for Chrysler and related professionals
      • Seeking expedited" hearing on "first day" motions
      • Establishment of case management and scheduling  procedures      
      • Retention of counsel and other professionals for Chrysler
      • Permission for Jones Day attorneys not admitted to practice in New York to participate in case 
    •   Commercial Relations
    • Business Operations
  • Here's a wrap-up of Friday's hearing.
  • The United States Treasury issued this press release (and the White House issued an identical press release) describing the government's  view of the proper exit plan for Chrysler 
  • The Am Law Daily takes a look at the holdout secured creditors.
  • A media teleconference  presented by the American Bankruptcy Institute can be heard by clicking here and following instructions

 

  • Chrysler 'first day" motion hearing Round II kicks off on Monday, May 4, 2009 at 10  AM;  spectators may use this handy agenda prepared by Jones Day to keep up

>>>>  and finally, some interesting commentary from some of my fellow bloggers:

UPDATE: After a three day hearing which extended into the evening each day, closing arguments were made late Friday afternoon and early evening.  Judge Gonzalez is expected to give his ruling regarding the 363 sale sought by Chrysler on Monday morning, June 1.  It is likely that whatever the ruling, it will be immediately appealed.  And yes, Monday is also the day GM is expected to file its Chpater 11 petition.  BIG BIG day for all of us bankruptcy nerds!!

For more information about 363 sales, visit my post 363 Bankruptcy Sale - What You Need to Know to Understand What's Going On with Chrysler and GM

 

UPDATE (6/1/09)  Late Sunday night, judge Gonzalez issued an opinion approving the proposed sale. 

GM and the Mirage of a Lightning Quick Section 363 Bankruptcy Sale - Even Theoretically It's a Tough Sell

So the latest brilliant (?) idea about what to do about the financial predicament GM finds itself in  - notice nobody is even talking in any meaningful way any more about resuscitating Chrysler - is to do what is known as a "363 sale" (so called because of the section of the Bankruptcy Code allowing it) in a quick two week "surgical" bankruptcy

How would that work?  And could it really be done in less than a fortnight?  Perhaps if you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and think all those stores about Paul Bunyon are true.  But otherwise, it's one tall tale to swallow.  As Jonathon Glater recently wrote in his NYT news analysis "A Quick Bankruptcy for G.M.?  Not So Fast":

Any hope of a high-speed bankruptcy by General Motors faces a serious obstacle:   a judge -- not the Obama administration, not G.M. management and not the company's creditors -- would reign in court.  

Overview of 363 Sale Process

Leaving aside considerations of "how things actually work in the real world", what are the mechanics involved in making a 363 sale happen?  Well, reduced to the bare essentials, the debtor files a motion (or motions) seeking authorization to sell certain, or all, of its assets.  Sometimes there is a written purchase offer from a prospective purchaser (who is known in bankruptcy circles as a "stalking horse" and will often seek payment of a "break-up fee" or topping fee" to protect against other would-be purchasers) that may be described in, or attached to the Motion.  Other times the Motion seeks authorization of some sort of auction procedure or submission of sealed bids.  Depending upon the complexity and size of the case, these procedures can often be -- and most certainly would be in a GM bankruptcy -- incredibly complicated.  Then the Bankruptcy Court may or may not hear testimony and ultimately issues an order approving the sale as proposed or as modified.     

There are of course rules that govern how all of this is supposed to take place.  Section 363(b)(1) states that a debtor "after notice and a hearing, may use, sell or lease, other than in the course of ordinary business, property of the estate..."  For purposes of a 363 sale, "property of the estate" is essentially the debtor's assets, i.e. equipment, real estate, etc. 

After Notice and a Hearing,,, or Not

And it is true that "after notice and a hearing" has a rather elastic meaning and may not really require an actual hearing in all cases.  According to section 102 of the Bankruptcy Code, it

(A)  means after such notice as is appropriate in the particular circumstances, and such opportunity for a hearing as is appropriate in the particular circumstances; but

(B) authorizes an act without an actual hearing if such notice is given properly and if --

(i)  such a hearing is not requested timely by a party in interest; or

(ii)  there is insufficient time for a hearing to be commenced before such act must be done, and the court authorizes such act.

SO, at least theoretically, a 363 sale could be authorized by the Bankruptcy Court in a matter of days in a GM bankruptcy.  

Section 363(f) - When Sale Can Occur

There are, however, some other requirements which might slow things down, even theoretically speaking.  Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code will only permit the sale of the debtor's property "free and clear of any interest ,,," (which is of course the whole reason for doing a 363 sale in the first place) if and only if:

  • Applicable non-bankruptcy law permits sale of such property free and clear of such interest;
  • The lienholder or other party with an interest in the property consents;
  • With respect to lienholders, the price at which such property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all liens on the property being sold;  
  • The interest is in bona fide dispute; OR
  • The lienholder or other party with an interest in the property could be compelled, in a legal or equitable proceeding, to accept a money satisfaction of such interest.

Now it used to be that bankruptcy courts routinely reasoned that state foreclosure law -- and similar laws with respect to personal property going by such names as replevin or "claim and delivery") -- provided all the rationale they needed to approve a 363 sale.  After all, the end result of a foreclosure IS that lienholders get however much money is paid at the sheriff's sale in the order of their priority. If you're the third lienholder and the sale proceeds only pay 10% of your debt after the folks ahead of you get paid, that's just too bad; you can still chase the debtor of course, but the successful purchaser at the sheriff's sale now owns the property free and clear of your lien.  The Uniform Commercial Code provides for a similar result when personal property is sold by the secured creditor in a "commercially reasonable" way.

Section 363(m) - What Appeal?

And, thanks to section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, once the Bankruptcy Court had "done the deed"  of authorizing a 363 sale, the reversal or modification of that Order on appeal "does not affect the validity of the sale... under such authorization to an entity that purchased... such property in good faith, whether or not such entity know of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such sale... were stayed pending appeal."  Because 363 sales were often consummated moments after the Order authorizing them was signed by the Bankruptcy Judge, disgruntled lienholders and other parties in interest often never had a chance to even seek a stay, let alone obtain one.

You may have noticed that I've been using the past tense in the last couple of paragraphs.  That's because the Ninth Circuit U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals Bankruptcy Appellate  Panel recently raised some questions about the supposed invulnerability of an order authorizing a 363 sale.  In Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008), the Bankruptcy Court had authorized a 383 sale in which the ultimately successful purchaser was the bank which held the first priority lien over the objection of the junior lienholder.  The bank "credit bid" the amount that was owed to it so it did not come out of pocket and no dollars flowed into the bankruptcy estate to pay the junior lienholder which a a $2.5 million claim.  The BAP overuled the bankruptcy court with a rather intricate interpretation of section 363(m).  In addition, the case was remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for a more specific demonstration that the provisions of subsection 363(f) were being met.   

For more detail on this case and what the BAP holding may mean  in general, visit "Clear Channel Raises Troubling Issues in Section 363 Sales But Case Doesn't Spell the End of Free-and-Clear Sales" , an article by Christopher Combest and Faye B. Feinstein in the Turnaround Management Journal.

Also check out "Will Section 363 'free and Clear' Sale Orders Survive an Appeal?  A recent Appellate Decision Raises New Doubts" by Robert Eisenbach III of the In the (Red) blog.

Although technically this only affects bankruptcies in the Ninth Circuit on the West Coast  - one place we can be certain GM will not file -- bankruptcy law has long been a procduct of trends starting in one particular jurisdiction.  Thus it's entirely possible that whatever Bankruptcy Court GM winds up facing would adopt this viewpoint.  So the net result of this is that a purchaser at any 363 sale might need to wait out the 10 day appeal period (and any subsequent appeal) before consummating the sale authorized by the Bankruptcy Court.  And some sort of real record will need to be made demonstrating the satisfaction of section 363(f) - there will need to be at least a modicum of due process allowing some preparation time before the hearing.

Other Important Requirements 363 Sales Must Meet 

There's also other substantive requirements that must be met before a 363 sale can be approved.  In the United States Sixth Circuit  -- which is certainly one place a GM bankruptcy might well unfold given its headquarters in Michigan -- a sale of all of the debtor's assets (and possibly by extension, the most important assets) can only be approved "when a sound business purpose dictates such action."  Stephens Indus., Inc. v. McClung,  789 F.2d 386 (6th Cir. 1986).  To determine whether that standard has been met in a particular case, the Bankruptcy Court must look at the following factors:

  • whether the terms of the proposed sale reflect the highest and best offer for the assets
  • whether the negotiations were conducted at arm's length
  • whether the sale is in the best interest of the estate and its creditors

There must also be a finding that the the purchaser has acted in "good faith" and that the sale itself is in "good faith".  The words of a slightly earlier case in the Sixth Circuit, Comm. of Equity Sec. Holders v. Lionel Corp. (In re Lionel), 722 F.2d 1063 (6th Cir. 1983) seem particular pertinent today:

In fashioning its findings, a bankruptcy judge must not blindly follow the hue and cry of the most vocal special interest groups; rather he should consider all salient factors pertaining to the proceeding and, accordingly, act to further the diverse interests of the debtor, creditors and equity holders, alike.  he might, for example, look to such relevant factors as the proportionate value of the asset to the estate as a whole, the amount of elapsed time since the filing, the liklihood that a plan of reorganization will be proposed and confirmed in the near future, the effect of the proposed disposition on future plans of reorganization, the proceeds to be obtained from the disposition vis-a-vis any appraisals of the property, which of the alternatives of use, sale or lease the proposal envisions and most importantly perhaps, whether the asset is increasing or decreasing in value.  This list is not exhaustivee, but merely to provide guidance to the bankruptcy judge. 

By now you're probably starting to understand how unlikely -- even in the theoretical vacuum-- it would be for GM or any other debtor to get in and out of a "surgical" aka "prenegotiated" or "prepackaged" or "controlled" (as if any bankruptcy could really be controlled once filed !). bankruptcy in two weeks, even using a 363 sale.

There's one more thing.  Section 363(b)(2) applies in situations in which antitrust law might apply to the proposed sale.  It REQUIRES a FIFTEEN DAY waiting period, which may be extended, but CANNOT be shortened.  While that might not be relevant in many situtions, it surely could become relevant in a GM bankruptcy.

So there you have it.  Whether it's a Chapter 11 case of a small business or a mega case like GM would be, this is what you have to do in order to sell assets once in bankruptcy.  The procedures also apply in a Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy with a bankruptcy trustee.  The emphasis is on transparency and what is "fair" and "equitable".  And that is not something that can be achieved in a "shotgun" bankruptcy, even if there really was such a beast outside of legend. 

UPDATE (6/1/09): So now it's official - GM is now in bankruptcy.  Filed in NYC, Case No. 09-50026, Judge Gerber presiding.  Check out my post GM Follows Dealership Affiliate to Obtain NYC Venue for Its Bankruptcy for all the basic filing info and press releases.

Looks like I might be wrong about the speed of approval for a sale, but in my defense (A) GM HAS actually been working pretty hard lately before filing to clean up loose ends and (B) I was naive enough to think we would actually go by real bankruptcy rules as opposed to distoring them beyond all recognition.  Nonetheless since GM doesn't actually have a third party seller like Chrysler did, it may still take longer than GM and the obama Administration are planning... even they gave up on the idea of a TWO WEEK surgical bankruptcy.

Why GM Will -- or at Least Should -- File Bankruptcy in Michigan

Lately everyone has stopped talking about IF General Motors will file bankruptcy.  Instead speculation has moved on to WHERE it will happen.  (Click here  and here for more speculation.)

It’s not like you can file just anywhere you want.  Under 28 United States Code section 1408, a company can file ONLY in the following places:

  • Where their principal place of business is
  •  Where the company was incorporated or formed
  •  Where an affiliate or subsidiary has already filed bankruptcy

For GM, these choices boil down to:

 

  • Michigan where its headquarters and many other operations are located
  • Delaware where it is incorporated
  • Possibly New York if it has an affiliate or subsidiary located there

So let’s look at how these stack up.

 

Michigan

 Michigan is the most obvious choice when one thinks about GM and where its business emanates from.  Michigan's Attorney General has even taken the unusual step of sending letters to the CEOs of both Chrysler and General Motors urging them to file bankruptcy in Michigan rather than New York or Delaware.  However, in the overall worsening economy, Michigan bankruptcy courts are likely to see significantly increased filings even apart from a GM bankruptcy filing.  That, together with the relatively less experience Michigan bankruptcy judges have with “big” cases, might make the goal of a quickie “in and out” bankruptcy more difficult to obtain.   

 

Delaware

Other things being equal, Delaware might well be the jurisdiction of choice,  Its bankruptcy judges are very experienced in handling mega-cases, regularly handle cases with national and even international ramifications, and have tended to make many rulings favorable to debtor companies before them.  As GM’s state of incorporation, Delaware falls squarely within the venue provisions.  One drawback might be that Delaware does not have (or at least I couldn't locate) any specific local rules governing prepackaged bankruptcy.  In addition, the governing law in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (of which Delaware is a part) has fairly strict rules for breaking collective bargaining agreements.

 

New York

Like Delaware, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has bankruptcy judges with substantial experience in handling mega-cases of national importance. In addition, it has specific local rules governing procedures for prepackaged bankruptcies. In the past it has reeled in several large cases that would otherwise not have been filed there.  However, while the lawyers GM has retained to assist it with a possible bankruptcy hale from NYC, New York is a bit of a stretch from a venue perspective.  As others have also noted, only one of GM's many subsidiaries, and  one fairly unrelated to its core business at that, is incorporated in New York.

 

 

     >>>>>>> SO, assuming it's just too difficult to justify a filing in NYC, why choose Michigan over Delaware as the place to file a General Motors bankruptcy?

 

Well for one thing, it's like a death in the family.  People in Michigan need closure.  But if that's not enough,  there's still... 

 

ONE SIMPLE REASON -- Motion to Change VenueSection 1412 of the United States Code provides:

A district court [28 USC 157(a) also gives bankruptcy courts the same authority] may transfer a case or proceeding under title 11 [the Bankruptcy Code] to a district court  [and bankruptcy court in that district], in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.

If General Motors chooses to file in Delaware rather than Michigan, it will be in for one heckuva a nasty fight over venue which will put the brakes on accomplishing anything else in the speedy manner whose importance has been so emphasized.  And the stakes are so high, you can bet this one is going all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. 

 

Whether the case gets transferred from Delaware to Michigan will be up to the Bankruptcy Judge in the jurisdiction General Motors has chosen to file (Delaware in our assumption).  And the party seeking a change of venue does have the burden of demonstrating that a change should be made.

 

Nevertheless, consider the factors usually relied upon by bankruptcy courts in Delaware and elsewhereto decide whether a case should be moved to another bankruptcy court.  A fairly recent Delaware decision (In re Buffets Holdings, Inc. , 397 B.R. 725 (Bktcy D. Del. 2008)), interestingly involving a motion to change venue to Michigan, enumerates the following factors as pertinent to determining what the interest of justice or convenience of the parties dictate

  • plaintiff's [i.e. debtor] choice of forum
  • defendant's [i.e. creditors and parties of interest] forum preference
  • whether the claim arose elsewhere
  • location of books and records and/or the possibioity of viewing the premises if applicable
  • the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition
  • the convenience of the witnesses -- but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora
  • practical considerations that would make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive
  • the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from congestion of the coourts' dockets
  • the public policies of the fora
  • the familiarity of the judge with the applicable state law
  • local interest in deciding local controversies at home

When one considers the place the auto industry holds in the Michigan economy and the numerous employees and retirees living there, it seems obvious that the case should unfold in Michigan.  Now, I'm not saying an argument couldn't be made for Delaware, and perhaps even New York, based primarily on the experience of their bankruptcy judges with large cases.  One might also argue that a Delaware bankruptcy court could be more objective than one in Michigan although one could also argue that the inate understanding of what a GM bankruptcy neans is precisely WHy it should take place in Michigan.  All I'm saying is that if getting in and out really is a priority to General Motors, filing anywhere but Michigan is going to have the case tied up for weeks, if not months.  

And the same goes for Chrysler...

UPDATE: Well they both wound up filing in NYC.  Chrysler just got its sale approved although it appears there will be appeals. And GM, well,click here for details on its filing.

Two Week "Surgical" Bankruptcy for GM? REALLY!!!???!!!

Earlier this week The New York Times ran a story entitled "'Surgical' Bankruptcy Possible for G.M." .  It suggested that the new plan being developed was for GM to be in and out of bankruptcy in TWO WEEKS!!    REALLY!!????!!  I didn't get off the boat yesterday. 

I LOL (LAUGHED OUT LOUD for the uninitiated)!!!!!!    It's a late April Fools joke, right?  Two months maybe if everything went just so, but TWO WEEKS???  I don't think so.

GM continues to claim that a quick restructuring, preferably outside bankruptcy, is necessary so that its image and sales are not permanently damaged.  NEWSFLASH!!  GM's image and sales are already damaged - it has NOWHERE TO GO BUT UP!!!!  In fact, bankruptcy might actually really help it do serious damage control.

One plan reportedly under consideration would essentially do a Bankruptcy Code section 363 sale.  The idea would be to sell all the desirable "good assets" of GM to a newly created company, GM Newco, if you will.  The less desirable assets would be left in the GM we know today (let's call it "old GM") and then liquidated, perhaps by converting the case to a Chapter 7.  The "legacy" obligations such as pensions and health care costs would also be left in old GM; the idea would be that the funds received by old GM for the conveyance of the "good" assets to GM Newco would be used to pay only a portion of the obligations of old GM.  The remaining portion would simply go unpaid, except to the extent paid by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation which would be sorely challenged to fund this fully.  Where would GM Newco get the money to do this?  Probably from the taxpayers in the short run, although it would be possible to have the private sector buy new stock in GM Newco.  Click here for a more detailed exp;lanation of how this would work.

I actually think this sounds like a pretty good idea and one which would allow GM to regoup and move forward as a company with some potential to become profitable again.  I'm just extremely skeptical about the timeline being suggested.

Supposedly, the "creditors committee", which is an important force in any large (and even some not so mega) Chapter 11 case,  would be formed prior to the filing and work on hammering out details before the filing occurred   While that would certainly help speed up the time in bankruptcy, the creditors' committe only includes the very largest unsecured creditors and there's really no way to negotiate with every single creditor GM has before filing.

It only takes ONE objection to the contemplated 363 sale to slow things down.  It seems virtually impossible to me that every single creditor will agree that the funds coming into old GM represents "fair consideration" for the assets conveyed to GM Newco.  An objection on this basis would HAVE to be heard by the Bankruptcy Court and it seems to me that due process would require at least a modicum of time for preparation for this hearing by the party raising the objection.

There's also a question of how the legacy debts for pensions and contracts with labor unions would have to be dealt with.  Section 1113 (concerning collective bargaining agreements) and 1114 o(concerning pensions) of the Bankruptcy Code might have something to say about that. 

And at least some Bankruptcy Courts have refused to allow section 363 sales when they are tantamount to a Plan of Reorganization because they deal with substantially all or the core assets of a debtor.  If you do have to go the plan route, there are statutory provisions in excess of two weeks that must be observed before a hearing can be held.

 Others are skeptical too.  Click here for another blogger's assessment of the challenges faced in making a two week "surgical" bankruptcy happen. And the WSJ is skeptical as well, especially about getting the bondholders on board.  In a story entitled"A Risky Bankruptcy Loons for GM", David Welch of Businessweek mentions still other obstacles to be overcome.

Bottom line, there are just too many different constituencies, some of which it may not be possible, and certainly hardly feasible, to reach and interact with before the filing.  If the proper groundwork is laid - and from the sounds of it, GM is finally almost out of denial about its options and ACTUALLY has started to explore the bankruptcy option in a meaningful way - two months would be an ambitious, but at least possible period of time to get through a prenegotiated (or as we're apparently calling it now, "surgical") bankruptcy.  But TWO WEEKS - i just don't see how.

As for Chrysler, does it even have enough any "good" assets that it could do the same thing? Based on press coverage, not likely.

UPDATE:  Well, both Chrysler and GM did file in NYC.  For the basic info about GM's filing, click here.

The Involuntary Bankruptcy Solution to the Automaker (But Not AIG) Financial Distress Saga

With all the speculation swirling around about whether the automakers (or at least GM or Chrysler) will eventually file bankruptcy, we've all overlooked one pretty important thing.  It's really not that hard to start involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against a company.  And, when it comes to Chrysler or General Motors, NOBODY has.

Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code requires only the following:

1.  To file an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 [no, you can't do an involuntary Chapter 13 against an individual], the target company  (or individual) must owe at least $13,475 in unsecured debt - THAT'S ALL!!!  This amount is indexed and will increase from year to year, but for right now, that's the number.

2.  If there are at least 12 unsecured creditors, then at least three (3) must join in the petition.  If there are fewer than twelve creditors, then a siingle creditor is all that is required.

3.  The unsecured creditors joining in the bankruptcy petition must have a claim that is not EITHER (A) "contingent as to liability"; or (B) "the subject of bona fide dispute".    If you've got a judgment, you're definitely in, but if you're a trade creditor and there's been no stink about the quality of what you've delivered, you're probably still "good to go", even if you don't have a judgment yet.

4.  There must be appropriate indicia of fincancial distress as demonstrated by EITHER

A.  A state law custodian or receiver has been appointed in the preceding 120 days;

OR

B.  The target company is not paying bona fide debts as they come due.

That's basically it.  For those wondering why this wouldn't also work for AIG, the answer is that  Section 109 of the Bankruptcy Code (when read in conjunction with section 303) prohibits an involuntary bankruptcy filing against banks and insurance companies, primarily because there are other specialized insolvency proceedings for these entities. 

It is of course possible that the Bankruptcy Court could require the posting of a bond by the petitioning creditors or by the target debtor (if it wants to regain possession of its assets), depending upon its view of whether the filing is frivilous or meritorious.  And the target debtor does have an opportunity to object and dispute the filing or to decide just to convert the whole thing to a voluntary Chapter 11 filing.  But the point is, it would be a start.... and no one seems to be biting.

Now, in real life, I usually try to discourage clients owed money from filing involuntary bankruptcy against another company.  Why share whatever assets and cash flow exist with other creditors according to the bankruptcy priority scheme when you might be able to do better through the "squeaky wheel' theory of interaction?  So maybe that's what's happening here too. 

Or perhaps the automakers are still paying all of their debts in a timely manner?  And so nobody actually has standing yet.

Generally, an involuntary proceeding works best when one is concerned about the activities of the management of the company or the possible dissipation of assets, either through legitimate activities by the target debtor, or as a result of less than honest behavior by those in charge.  Now I'm not suggesting for an instant that anything shady is going on in the corporate suites in Detroit, but i have to think that at least some folks are getting a little worried about where the automaker managment is taking these companies and what may be a deterioration in value of their assets.

So, again I come back to the question: if so many people think GM and Chrysler should be bankruptcy, why hasn't anyone actually done something about it?  And why NOT?

I don't have an answer - I just think it's an interesting question.  

 

Dealing with the Bankruptcy of Your Commercial Landlord or Tenant

With the economy seemingly in a tailspin, even comparatively healthy businesses are being affected by the bankruptcy of other companies with which they have a landlord-tenant relationship.  For commercial landlords faced with the bankruptcy of a business tenant, the questions usually revolve around will I get paid and, if not, how can I get this deadbeat out?  For tenants, the bankruptcy of a landlord raises the even more basic question:  so now, what?   Either way, section 365 and section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code have the answers.

>>> If You Are a Commercial Landlord of Nonresidential Real Property with a Tenant Who Has Filed Bankruptcy...

     1.     Remember the Automatic Stay!  Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code imposes an injunction-like automatic stay which prevents a landlord from commencing or continuing any eviction or collection action against a delinquent tenant.  This applies in all bankruptcy cases, whether Chapter 7, 11,12, or 13.  Contempt charges, fines, and in extreme cases, even jail, can result from vi9olations of the automatic stay.

  • EXCEPTION - If the lease has in fact actually been terminated BEFORE the date the bankruptcy petition, Bankruptcy Code sections 362(b)(10) and 541(b)(2) allow actions to recover possession of the premises to proceed.  Collection actions to recover money judgment would still be stayed.

     2.     Expect to Receive Post-Petition Administrative Rent If Tenant Does Not Vacate Premises.  If a business tenant remains in possession of premises after filing bankruptcy, the landlord is entitled under section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code to rent at the contract rate payable according to the terms of the lease until such time as the debtor tenant rejects the lease, surrenders and vacates the leased property.  The debtor is expected to make immediate timely payment of these amounts as they come due.  The amount of this post-petition rent is an administrative claim entitled to priority in payment over other unsecured claims; it's up there with taxes and the debtor's attorneys fees.

  • In Chapter 7 cases, the lease is automatically deemed rejected in 60 days unless the trustee has sought and obtained additional time within which to make a decision regarding how to handle the lease.  Section 365(d)(1). 
  • If administrative rent is not promptly and timely paid, it may be necessary to file a motion seeking relief from stay.

     3.     Know Your Rights If the Debtor Tenant Wants to Assume or Assign the Lease.  Before an unexpired lease of nonresidential real property can be assumed or assigned, Bankruptcy Code section 365(b) requires the following:

  • All monetary defaults must be cured.
  • "Adequate assurance" must be provided that any nonmonetary defaults will be promptly cured.
  • Adequate assurance" must be provided that lease obligations will continue to be satisfied in the future. 
  • If the property involved is a shopping center, there are some additional specific requirements that must be met pursuant to section 365(b0(30 of the Bankruptcy Code

In addition, the lease must be assumed as a whole; the debtor tenant is not allowed to modify or cherry-pick the terms it wishes to have included and reject the remaining terms.  It is also important to rememeber that, in a change made in 2005 by Congress, the debtor tenant must make a decision concerning whether to assume or assign a lease within 120 days after the date the bankruptcy petition is filed; the debtor may obtain one 90 day extentsion of this deadline, but that is all.  If no decision is made, the lease is deemed rejected.  Section 365(d)(4). 

   If a nonresidential real property lease is rejected, the landlord is entitled to lease rejection damages under section 502(b)(6) in an amount equal to the greater of (i) one year of rent; or (ii) 15% of the remaining rent due, not to exceed three years worth of rent payments.  Thus, for long term leases with a substantial balance remaining, this generally results in a cap of one year's rent, including any cost of living increases.

  • This claim will be treated as an unsecured claim, but is in addition to the administrative rent claim discussed above and any unsecured claim to prepetition deliquent rent discussed below.
  • Generally, CAM common area maintenace charges and similar aspects of "additional rent' required under a lease are included within the calculation if they are properly designated. 
  • There is some case law suggesting that  a landlord may forfeit this claim if the property is sold after the debtor tenant's rejection of a lease. 
  • The amount of any security deposit held by a landlord may be used to offset this claim or one for prepetition rent owed, but under section 362(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code, relief from stay is needed before doing this. 
  • A landlord may be able to protect itself by insisting upon a letter of credit which would allow it to receive payment for the remaining rent from a source other than the debtor's bankruptcy estate.  However, not all courts agree.

     5.     Don't Forget to File a Proof of Claim for Prepetition Unpaid Rent.  In addition to lease rejection damages and any applicable administrative rent, a landlord of nonresidential real property is entitled to an unsecured claim pursuant to section 502(b)(6)(B) for unpaid rent due and owing to the landlord from the debtor tenant  as of the day the bankruptcy petition was filed.

 >>> If You Are a Tenant Occupying Nonresidential Real Property and Your Landlord Has Filed Bankruptcy....  

     1.     Don't Panic,,,, Yet.  Unless you are subletting - which raises a whole 'nother set of issues - you don't have to vacate the premises.  Until a decision is made by the landlord to reject the lease, the landlord remains obligated to comply with its obligations under the lease to you.  Also the automatic stay may protect you - at least temporarily -- from any disruptions that might otherwise be caused by creditors of your landlord.  And because you represent a source of revenue, it is likely that you will receive the attention of professionals engaged to assist the debtor landlord.  

     2.     If the Landlord Chooses to Assume or Assign Your Lease.  Just as a tenant debtor must cure monetary defaults and provide "adequate assurance"  of the prompt cure of nonmonetary defaults and of future performance under the lease, so too must the debtor landlord if it wishes to assume or assign the lease with a nondebtor tenant.  The Retail Law Observer has this useful post regarding how tenants can take protective action now to strengthen their position in the event of a landlord bankruptcy.

   3.     If the Landlord Decides to Reject the Lease.   Even if the debtor landlord decides to reject a teant's lease, under section 365(h), the tenant still has the option of either (i) treating the lease as terminated and vacating the premises; or (ii) remaining in possession.  If the tenant opts to remain, the landlord is not required to perform any of its obligations under the lease, but is entitled to offset any damages cause by the landlord's failure to perform its obligations against the tenant's rent obligations. 

    4.     File a Proof of Claim for Any Damages Not Offset by Rent Obligations.  If the landlord fails to perform their obligations under the lease, this may cause a tenant damages.   if so, a proof of claim shuld be filed detailing those damages.     

The Long and Winding Road of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy: A Typical Timeline

I'm not sure how good I feel about the fact that far too many people now actually understand what I do as a bankruptcy creditors' attorney here in Central Ohio.  If I was unsure before about the truly distressing condition of the economy, the car ad I saw on TV the other day - which sought to induce viewers to purchase a car by telling them that  if they lost their source of income over the next year, they would be able to bring the car back - removed all doubt.  Then I heard this morning that the unemployment rate is the highest it has been in TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, which is to say AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN WORKING!!   Which certainily puts things in perspective and leads to the further disturbing conclusion that for lawyers like me working for creditors in the bankruptcy law area, job security is probably somewhat better than for the rest of America.

Unfortunately, for the country as a whole, the number of businesses becoming familar with the mechanics of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is likely to increase in the year aheadEither one of their customers or vendors will be going through this or they themselves will become a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession or DIP, for short.   

In addition, there has been a great deal of discussion recently about prepackaged bankruptcy for Detroit's Big Three automakers as being a possible antidote to the problems associated with the lengthy time frames associated with the the usual Chapter 11 bankruptcy,  To understand that, it's useful to consider the timelines generally associated with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

OVERVIEW OF EFFECT OF CHAPTER 11 FILING

So what actually happens when a business "goes Chapter 11"?  In many cases, those not in the know about the particular financial condition of a business may not even know that the business has sought the protection of the federal bankruptcy laws.  Companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy are allowed to continue operating their business as before and from the customer perspective, the filing of the bankruptcy does not necessarily change the customer experience.  However, it is the bankrupt company's vendors and suppliers  that will notice an immediate difference in their relationships as various restrictions imposed by the Bankruptcy Code on the activities of the debtor company come into play. 

Technically, everything grinds to a halt when a bankruptcy petiton is filed and the world - for that company (who has now become a Debtor-in-Possession or DIP), its employees, customers, and vendors - was now become divided into

  • "prepetition" involving claims arising and events occurring BEFORE the bankruptcy petition was filed AND
  •  "post-petition" involving claims arising and events occurring AFTER the bankruptcy petiton was filed

Prepetition claims cannot be paid  - and collection cannot be pursued against the DIP company - absent specific authorization by the Bankruptcy Court.  Post petition claims can be paid in many instances if they arise in the ordinary course of the company's business and even if further authorization by the Bankruptcy Court is required,  generally go to the head of the line of unsecured creditors as administrative claims.

OVERVIEW OF TYPICAL CHAPTER 11 TIMELINE

The U.S. Courts' website provides a great summary of the typical Chapter 11 process, as well as the Offical Forms to be used by the company filing bankruptcy.  While there is no set timeline in a Chapter 11 (for an excellent visual representation of precisly how complicated things can get, look at the well known LoPucki's Bankruptcy Procedure Charts designed by UCLA law professior Lynn M. LoPucki) , some of the usual benchmarks might include the following:

ONE YEAR BEFORE PETITION IS FILED  - "Preference" period for "insiders" begins

NINETY DAYS BEFORE PETITION IS FILED - "Preference" period for noninsiders begins

PETITION DATE ("P") -   Day that Chapter 11 VOLUNTARY Bankruptcy Petition is filed   (Assume this is January 1, 2009)

  • Bankruptcy Petition is only a few pages and easy to complete
  • Must also include Creditor Matrix - list of names and addresses of all creditors
  • List of Credtiors Holding 20 Largest Unsecured Claims must also be filed.
  • Numerous "first day" motions filed (different ones in different cases), including motions for
    • Appointment of Debtor's Counsel
    • Appointment of other professionals being retained by Debtor (CPA, etc.)
    • Payment of prepetiton employee wages and benefits
    • Interim financing
    • Interim use of "cash collateral", i,e. proceeds generated from collateral on which a creditor has a lien
    • Authorizing honoring of Prepetiton Obligations to Customers in the form of warranties or gift certificates
    • Ensuring uninterrupted use of utlities
    • Extension of time to file bnakruptcy schedules

>>>> Meet with U.S. Trustee, open DIP (debtor-in-possession) bank accounts  

>>>> Resolve use of cash collateral issues, if not (hopefully) already done 

 P+15 days: (January 16, 2009)  Statement of Financial Affairs  and Schedules of Assets and Liabilities  must be filed unless deadline extended by Bankruptcy Court,  (In large cases, deadline often extended several times.)   Schedules include  a Summary, as well as the following  (Schedule I-Current Income and Schedule J-Current Expenditures relate only to individuals).

  • Schedule A      Real Property
  • Schedule B      Personal Property
  • Schedule C      Property Claimed as Exempt (not relevant for non individual debtors)
  • Schedule D      Creditors Holding Secured Claims (includes both fully secured and only partially secured creditors)
  • Schedule E      Creditors Holding Unsecured Priority Claims (continuation sheet)
  • Schedule F      Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims
  • Schedule G      Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases
  • Schedule H      Codebtors

Completing the Statement of Financial Affairs which relates to debtor's prepetition behavior with respect to its assets, liabilities, and revenues, and especially all of the above bankruptcy Schedules relating to the debtor's assets and liabilities, is extremely time consuming.  The larger the business, the more complicated the process becomes.  in addition, companies needing to file bankruptcy often may not have had the best recordkeeping to begin with.  

>>>> UNSECURED CREDITORS' COMMITTEE FORMED (usually within the first couple of weeks following the Petition Date) based on the identity of the Twenty Largest Creditors as listed by the Debtor.  Generally selected by U.S. Trustee.  Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Creditors' Committee filed.  In smaller Chapter 11 cases, often no Unsecured Credtiors Committee is ever formed.  Purpose of Creditors' Committee is to represent the interest of creditors with smaller unsecured claims .

P+30 Days (February 1, 2009) - first Monthly Operating Report due showing results of postpetition activities.

>>>>>FIRST MEETING OF CREDITORS (aka 341 Meeting because it is mandated by 11 U.S.C. 341) conducted by U.S. Trustee at which debtor's representative answers questions under oath from creditors about the factors triggering the filing, status of assets (including those pledged as collateral), and plans for restructuring.

>>> continued filing of Monthly Operating Reports

>>>>Miscellaneous stay relief, adequate protection, lease and executory contract assumption/rejection issues arise; adversary proceedings filed

>>>>Revisit or further establish cash collateral arrangements and post-petition financing arrangements

>>>Establishment of a BAR DATE for when proof of claims must be filed by creditors

>>>>Begin formulation and negotiation with pertinent creditors regarding terms of Plan of Reorganzation, including proposed classification and treatment of claims

>>>Begin analysis of potential preference recoveries.

P+120 DAYS (May 2009) - Expiration of "exclusive period" during which only DIP is permitted to file plan of reorganization.  Exclusive period often extended at request of DIP by Bankruptcy Court. 

>>>> PROOF OF CLAIM BAR DATE - all creditors not agreeing to amount of claim shown in bankruptcy schedules must have filed proof of claim form to participate in any distributions

>>>>> Continued formulation and negotiation of Plan of Reorganization.  Proposed PLAN OF REORGANIZATION and proposed DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed.  Disclosure Statement must summarize contents of proposed Plan and provide "adequate information" concerning the Plan and its implementation.

  • At least a 25 day notice period is required for hearing on Disclosure Statement
  • Once Disclosure Statement approved,  proposed Plan of Reorganization, approved Disclosure Statement, and Ballot for voting on Plan must be distributed to all creditors and parties in interest.
  • Revision and extensive negotiation of Plan often required

>>>>> CONFIRMATION HEARING on proposed Plan of Reorganization

  • At least a 25 day notice period is required for confirmation hearing  
  • Ballots must be tabulated - at least a majority in number and two-thirds in amount of claims voted in at least one class of impaired claims required for confirmation
  • Other confirmation requirements (including provisions governing contents of plan) set forth in sections 1126 and 1129  of the Bankruptcy Code such as feasibility must be satisfied

 >>>>PREFERENCE ACTIONS and other adversary proceedings intiiated.

>>>> Claims determination and allowance proceedings

That, somewhat oversimplified, is the timeline of a typical Chapter 11 case.  Because there is often no way to know how long it may take to reach agreement or determination of such crucial issues as the valuation of particular property securing creditor claims, it is rarely easy to predict how long any particular case may take to resolve sufficient issues for the company to emerge from bankruptcy.  Along the way, questions as to whether the company has the ability to service even a debt burden as permitted to be modified under the Bankruptcy Code may arise.  

Why ABCs Aren't Popular Alternatives to Bankruptcy in Ohio

With the economy definitely on the downturn, more and more businesses are facing financial distress and looking for a way out.  One of the ironies of the current commercial landscape is that Chapter 11 bankruptcy may just be TOO EXPENSIVE for many privately held companies.  Even a relatively small Chapter 11 proceeding in Central Ohio will likely require the upfront payment of a retainer of  $25,000 or more to the attorney filing the petition on behalf of the would-be debtor.  So are there any alternatives to just throwing in the towel?

One alternative growing in popularity in many states is the Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, known as an ABC for short.  For an excellent overview of how ABCs generally work, read Bob Eisenbach"s post "Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors:Simple as ABC?" on his In the (Red) blog on business bankruptcy.  In general, an assignment for the benefit of creditors is often an out of court process by which a financially distressed compnay can distribute its available assets to creditors.

However, ABCs are a pure creature of state law and so will work differently in each state which recognizes them.  Here are some links to how they work in some particular states:

In Ohio, however, ABCs are not really a viable option in most cases.  Why?  In a nutshell, they involve the Probate Court which is not likely to be viewed by either debtor or creditor as well versed in dealing with financially distressed businesses and offer little if anything which could not be more easily accomplished through use of a receivership.

Unlike Ohio receiverships, Ohio ABCs are governed by a relatively detailed statutory scheme found in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1313.  A company wishing to take advantage of the process must file a written assignment of its assets to a bondable assignee in the PROBATE COURT in the county in which the company's physical assets are located.  If there are no physical assets, then the filing must be  made in Franklin County, Ohio.

Once the chosen assignee has filed its bond (required to be accomplished within 10 days of the initial filing), the Probate Court appoints three individuals to act as appraisers to determine the value of the company's assets.  The assignee is required to file an inventory of all of the real and personal property of the company (including the values determined by the appraisers) within 30 days of his appointment.

Once the inventory has been prepared and filed with the Probate Court, the assignee may begin selling assets after publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.  However, the assignee cannot sell any item for less than two-thirds of its appraised value.  Any sale made must then be confirmed by the Probate Court.  The assignee is compensated for its efforts pursuant to Ohio Rev Code 1313.50 as follows:

  • 6% of the first $1,000 of assets sold
  • 4% of $1,000 to $5,000 of assets sold
  • 2% of all proceeds above $5,000 

Creditors have six months from the time notice of the ABC has been published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county to file their claims with the Probate Court.

Overall, the ABC process in Ohio offers relatively few benefits to either debtor or creditors.  Unlike a bankruptcy or receivership, an ABC is solely a liquidation vehicle.  In addition, because of statutory requirements, it offers less flexibility in how any liquidation will be allowed to proceeed.  Finally, it is unlikely that either the distressed company or any creditor will feel especially comfortable about having to submit to the jursidiction of the local Probate Court.

Exploring the Ohio Blawgosphere Neighborhood

Now that I'm well into YEAR TWO of this legal blogging thing, I thought it might be fun to take stock of the neighbors.  So today I am presenting what I think is a relatively comprehensive list of Ohio-based legal blogs, together with the date they started publishing and a few comments of my own.  My apologies in advance for leaving anyone out or getting start dates wrong. 

My criteria was basically legal blogs focused on Ohio law or authored by Ohio based attorneys.  I took a little stab at this several months ago in my My Favorite Ohio-Based Legal Blogs post, but this time I really looked around to be as inclusive as possible..

The oldest blog still going that I could find isn't even five years old, although there were a few blogs that I couldn't quite tell when they first began.   With the others, I relied upon whatever the earliest post in the archives seemed to be.  What's even more interesting, however, is the explosion in the number of Ohio-based legal blogs which started publishing last year. 

When it comes to law firms embracing blogs, Frost Brown Todd is the clear leader with four separate blogs.  Unfortunately, since all of the blogs are located on a subpage of Frost Brown Todd's website, casual access to the blogs and their content via search engines and otherwise is not as easy as it should be given the quality of the posts which all of the blogs boast.

BEST OHIO-BASED LEGAL BLOGS.  Some blogs just catch your fancy more than others.  For me, it's a combination of quality writing, interesting and helpful content, unique/intriguing perspectives, and generous links to other resources if I want to know more about the subject.  Some of the blogs listed below were fairly hard to find so I'm not intimately familiar with all the blogs on the list; however, I did at least try to get some sort of feel for each of these blogs once I found them. 

I don't pretend that I went through any scientific process to determine this, but  from my perspective as a semi-established Ohio law blogger, here are my picks (excluding myself, of course) for the 

BEST THREE OHIO-BASED LEGAL BLOGS 

Honorable Mention goes to:

AND NOW THE ROSTER >>>>

Since this is, after all, the Ohio Practical BUSINESS Law blog, let's start with blogs focused on business/corporate law:

 

BUSINESS/CORPORATE

  • The D & O Diary - Kevin LaCroix, Oakbridge Insurance Services -May 2006 >>> Bills itself as "a periodic journal containing items of interest from the world of directors and officers liability, with occasional commentary".  Very detailed and well written posts from the perspective of someone interested in minimizing management liability.
  • Corporate Governance Blog - Bricker & Eckler - NA >>> Offers "counsel for Boards and Executives" in generally short nonbylined to-the-point posts on timely issues.
  • Business Law Prof Blog - Dan Oesterle, editor, The Ohio State University - May 2005 >>> "A member of the Law Professor Blogs network".  Frequent posts on business news items
  • Banking L@w Blog  - Frost Brown Todd - NA >>> Provides the "latest information on banking litigation and dispute resolution",
  •  Ohio.Merger.Blawg - Jim RenchStark & Knoll - November 2006 >>> Describes itself as "a blog on recent and topical developments in corporate transactions law."  Features commentary on news and events in business.
  • Global Law - Frost Brown Todd - NA  >>> "Resource for business leaders within the international commerce industry". 
  • Small Business Trends  - Anita Campbell - October 2003 >>>  This one really isn't technically a legal blog at all, but it does frequently cover business law topics and is edited by Ohio-based lawyer so I'm including it anyway.  Always informative posts on a variety of issues facing smaller privately held businesses. 
  • Ohio Practical Business Law - Teri Rasmussen, Plunkett Cooney - October 2007 >>> Offers "practical guidance for making legaly informed business decisions".

 

LAW LIBRARY BLOGS

  • Cleveland Law Library Weblog - Sue Altmeyer (?) - March 2005 >>> "Our goal is to inform local attorneys of major legal developments important to their practice".  Very short -- but extremely informative -- posts, often concerning topics of interest and importance to the practice of law in Ohio.  Very newsy.  I frequently visit just to catch up on developments which may have otherwise slipped under my radar or to get ideas for posts.  GREAT links to other sources with more information about the topic being discussed.
  • Cincinnati Law Library Blog - Chuck Kallendorf - July 2004 >>> Similar to the Cleveland Law Library Weblog, but less frequent posting.
  • Moritz Legal Information Blog - Matt Steinke - January 2006 >>> Providing " "legal information and research resources brought to you by the Michael E. Moritz law Library at The Ohio State University".  Very short posts with limited frrequency

 

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • Ohio Employer's Law Blog - Jon Hyman, Kohrman, Jackson & Kranitz - May 2007 >>> Promises "practical employment law information for business in ohio and beyond"  and delivers.  Generally short pithy posts on practical matters employers definitely need to know.  Its WIRTW (aka What I'm Reading this Week" segment is a useful round-up of other blog posts in the area of labor and employment.
  • Employer's Law Report - Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur - December 2007 >>> Presents posts "reporting on recent legal developments and trends affecting employers."  Personally  i like the "Employment Outtakes"category which feature sometimes humorous situations which would probably have gone better had an employment lawyer been consulted. 
  • HR Source Legal Source - Tod Morrow, Hans Nilges, and Susan Chae, Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP - NA >>> Featuring posts regarding "labor and employment law for hyman resources professionals".  
  • The Ohio Labor Lawyers - Matthew Austin, Mason Law Firm - December 2008 >>> Promises that "we change the way you deal with unions" and posts from the perspective of management.   Features "What If Wednesdays" weekly posts about what to do "if certain things in the world of labor happen to you." 
  • The Ohio Employment Lawyers - Aaron Tulecik, Mason Law Firm - December 2008  >>> Promises that "we solve your workplace issues"  Posts on employment  law news from perspective of management.
  • Employer Notes - Frost Brown Todd -- NA  >>> Provides the "latest information regarding employers".

 

REAL ESTATE

  •  Ohio Real Estate Blog - Kohrman, Jackson & Kranitz - April 2008 >>> Useful posts by various firm attorneys on a wide variety of real estate law topics
  •  Real Estate Advisor Law Blog - Brian Kaplan, Ulmer & Berne - December 2008 >>>  Describes its purpose as "disseminat[ing] pertinent information in a timely manner relating to real estate, construction, financing, environmental and related matters... [and designed] to identify trends and opportunities that our clients and contacts deem important for their businesses." 

 

CONSTRUCTION

  • Construction Law News - Frost Brown Todd - NA >>> Bills itself as "a resource for construction industry professionals".
  • Build on This - Rana Gorzeck, Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs - (March 2005 - August 2008, now apparently defunct) >>> Presenting "current news, information and events affecting the real estate construction and land use industry and its professsionalism"

 

ESTATE PLANNING

  • The Ohio Trust & Estate Blog,- Michael D. Bonesera, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP - NA >>> Helpful, relatively short posts concerniing trusts and estate planning issues 
  • Ohio Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law - Bradley Wrightsel, Wrightsel & Wrightsel - 2008 >> Describes itself as "a law blog (BLAWG) for professionals and the general public in ohio regarding estate plannig, trust, and probate law."

 

  CRIMINAL LAW

  • The Briefcase - Russ Bensing - May 2006 >>> Describes itself as "commentary and analysis of Ohio law".  This remains one of my favorite blogs to look in on periodically even though the subject matter isn't one with much relvance to my practice areas.  I enjoy Russ's wit and storytelling ability as he posts about various adventures as a criminal lawyer.  And his Ohio appellate case summaries are useful too.  
  • Sixth Circuit Blog - Federal Defenders of the Sixth Circuit - April 2005  >>> Providing "case summaries and commentary by federal defenders of the Sixth Circuit"   

 

MISCELLANEOUS

  • Consumer Rights Law Blog - Ron Burdge - 2005 >>> Addresses "motor vehicle lemon law, consumer protection law, auto industry news, notes, issues and updates".   Very attractive layout featuring  posts of interest to consumers.
  • Ohio Family Law Blog - Robert Mues, Holzfaster, Cecil, McKnight & Mues, LPA - December 2007 >>> Offering "family law and divorce information for Ohio families seeking solutions".  Frequent guest contributors.  Helpful, very accessible, posts focusing on important issues in this area.   
  • Tsibouris & Associates Law Blog - Dino Tsibouris and Mehmet Munur, Tsibouris & Associates - January 2005 >>>  interesting posts on a variety of subjects, but with special emphasis on technology law, privacy and security law and issues involving financial services.
  •  The Alternative Fee Lawyer - Michael Grodhaus, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley - January 2008 >>> Featuring "an Ohio business lawyer's reflections on alternatives to the billable hour in setting legal fees for business clients".  Insightful, if somewhat sporadic, posts on an extremely timely and important  topic . This is a blog that I would really like to hear more from.
  • Ohio Environmental Law Blog - Joseph Koncelik, Frantz Ward, LLP - June 2008 >>> Presenting "insight and commentary for the business and legal community" regarding environmental law. 
  • Juvan's Health Law Update - Jayne Juvan, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP - September 2006 >>> Presents posts "at the intersection of health care and private equity".
  • Ohio Law Blog - Morrison & Nicholson, LLC - December 2007 (very sporadic posting, primarily in December and January)
  • Sixth Circuit Blog - Eric Zagrams - last post in November 2008, rather sporadic before then  >>> Says that it is "devoted to appellate law and practice within the Sixth Circuit and constituent States." 

All About Getting Relief from Bankruptcy's Automatic Stay

One of the immediate effects of a bankruptcy petition (of any type, whether Chapter 7, 11, or 13) is the imposition of the "automatic stay" pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code which stops creditors cold in their tracks.  My law school professor used to say that all the creditor could do at this point was "smile at the debtor".  So what's a creditor to do?  Seek relief from stay, that's what.

Creditors wanting to go on about their business of enforcing their remedies for a debtor's default must apply to the Bankruptcy Court for permission to continue by filing a Motion for Relief from Stay.  In my part of the world here in Central Ohio, creditors seeking relief from stay in the Southern District of Ohio Bankruptcy Court must also comply with the procedures set out in Local Bankruptcy Rule 4001-1.  Among other things, that means completion of a worksheet summarizing important information about the debt nvolved and the value of the property  

Generally, two sorts of creditors seek stay relief  - secured creditors with liens on personal or real property and parties immursed in underlying litigation in another forum better suited to determine liability of the debtor.  To be successful, a party seeking relief from stay must satisfy one of the subsections of section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code which provides:

 (d) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided under subsection (a) of this section, such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay—

(1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest;

 

(2) with respect to a stay of an act against property under subsection (a) of this section, if—

 

(A) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and

(B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization;

(3) with respect to a stay of an act against single asset real estate under subsection (a), by a creditor whose claim is secured by an interest in such real estate, unless, not later than the date that is 90 days after the entry of the order for relief (or such later date as the court may determine for cause by order entered within that 90-day period) or 30 days after the court determines that the debtor is subject to this paragraph, whichever is later—

 

(A) the debtor has filed a plan of reorganization that has a reasonable possibility of being confirmed within a reasonable time; or

(B) the debtor has commenced monthly payments that—

(i) may, in the debtor’s sole discretion, notwithstanding section 363 (c)(2), be made from rents or other income generated before, on, or after the date of the commencement of the case by or from the property to each creditor whose claim is secured by such real estate (other than a claim secured by a judgment lien or by an unmatured statutory lien); and

(ii) are in an amount equal to interest at the then applicable nondefault contract rate of interest on the value of the creditor’s interest in the real estate; or

(4) with respect to a stay of an act against real property under subsection (a), by a creditor whose claim is secured by an interest in such real property, if the court finds that the filing of the petition was part of a scheme to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors that involved either—

 

(A) transfer of all or part ownership of, or other interest in, such real property without the consent of the secured creditor or court approval; or

(B) multiple bankruptcy filings affecting such real property.

If recorded in compliance with applicable State laws governing notices of interests or liens in real property, an order entered under paragraph (4) shall be binding in any other case under this title purporting to affect such real property filed not later than 2 years after the date of the entry of such order by the court, except that a debtor in a subsequent case under this title may move for relief from such order based upon changed circumstances or for good cause shown, after notice and a hearing. Any Federal, State, or local governmental unit that accepts notices of interests or liens in real property shall accept any certified copy of an order described in this subsection for indexing and recording.

 

Subsection (d)(2) - No Equity.   When I started practicing bankruptcy in Columbus almost 25 years ago, stay relief was fairly straightforward.  Mostly we went under subsection (d)(2) - no equity in the property and not necessary for an effective reorganization.  In Chapter 7 cases, that was pretty much a "slam dunk" from the "get-go",  In Chapter 11  or 13 cases, you might have to wait a few months just to make it easier to demonstrate that no reorganization was over the next hill, but it was still fairly cut and dried.  This tried and true option is still the the preferred route for creditors if they qualify. 

Subsection (d)(1) - Lack of Adequate Protection.  Another established option avbilable to creditors seeking relief from stay is subsection (d)(1) "for cause, including the lack of adequate protection".  Section 361 of the Bankruptcy Code defines "adequate protection" in some detail, but basically "adequate protection" is about compensating a creditor in such a way, usually with monetary payments, as to preserve the status quo existing at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed.  Generally, this grounds for relief from stay lends itself to situations in which the property pledged as collateral is deteriorating in value and/or any "equity cushion" representing the amount the value of the collateral exceeds the debt secured by it is small, nonexistent, or decreasing.  From the secured creditor's perspective, this ground is often used in tandem with subsection (d)(1) on the theory that at worst, the creditor will wind up receiving periodic (probably monthly) payments in most cases representing accrued interest.      

Subsection (d)(1) - "For Cause".  The more general "for cause" stay relief ground of subsection 362(d)(1) is a little more interesting.  It is the ground relied upon in insurance and other cases in which another court is in the process of, or is better suited, to determine what, if any, liability the debtor has with respect to a contingent or otherwise unliquidated claim asserted by a creditor.  It's also a catch-all provision allowing the Bankruptcy Court to exercise its powers of equity in appropriate cases,

"As used in §362(d)(1), the term ‘cause’ is a broad and flexible concept which permits a bankruptcy court, as a court of equity, to respond to inherently fact-sensitive situations.”   In re Indian River Estates, Inc., 293 B.R. 429, 433 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2003).   As the Bankruptcy Court explained:

Where relief from stay is being sought in order to continue the enforcement of a prior judgment, this Court in determining the existence of “cause”, has applied a balancing test, whereby the interests of the estate are weighed against the hardships that will be incurred by the creditor-plaintiff. For example, if lifting the stay would be unfairly detrimental to a debtor’s other creditors, relief will generally not be granted. On the other hand, if the debtor will unlikely be able to propose a plan of reorganization, “cause” for lifting the stay will usually be found.

A lack of good faith may constitute “cause” for lifting the automatic stay. In re Trident Associates Limited Partnership, 52 F.3d 127 (6th Cir. 1994). “Cause” can certainly include improper pre-petition conduct by Debtor, In re Charfoos, 979 F.2d 390, 394 (6th Cir. 1992).  In evaluating whether a lack of good faith such as would justify a lifting of the stay, the Sixth Circuit enumerated the following factors in In re Trident Associates Limited Partnership, namely:

  • Debtor has one asset
  • Pre-petition conduct of debtor has been improper
  • Debtor has only a few unsecured creditors
  • Debtor’s property has been posted for foreclosure and debtor has been unsuccessful in defending against foreclosure in state court
  • Debtor and creditor have proceeded to a standstill in state court and debtor has lost
  • Filing of the petition effectively allows the debtor to evade court order
  • Debtor has no ongoing business or employees
  • Lack of possibility of reorganization

 

In the last few years, additional subsections have been added to section 362(d) that address situations in which a secured creditor previously might have had to rely on the general "for cause" grounds of subsection (d)(1). 

Subsection (d)(3) - "Single Asset Real Estate".  Subsection (d)(3) applies to cases involving "single asset real estate" and starts a clock ticking in these cases.  Section 101(51B) of the  Bankruptcy Code defines "single asset real estate" as:

real property constituting a single property or project, other than residential real property with fewer than 4 residential units, which generates substantially all of the gross income of a debtor who is not a family farmer and on which no substantial business is being conducted by a debtor other than the business of operating the real property and activities incidental.  

Under subsection (d)93), when a bankruptcy (usually a Chapter 11) involves "single asset real estate", the debtor has 90 days to either file  a feasible plan of reorganization OR essentially start making adequate protection payments in an amount equal to the accruing interest - calculated at a nondefault rate - on the VALUE of the property securing the creditor's claim.

Subsection (d)(4) - Multiple Bankruptcy Filings Affecting Real Property Parcel.  Finally, subsection 362(d)(4) relates to the situation in which a debtor has abused the bankruptcy system with serial filings affecting real property.  This might apply in situations in which there have been multiple filings by the same debtor or tag-team filings by a husband and wife. 

What's Good for General Motors is Good for America? Analyzing Some Alternatives

As a business/commercial attorney whose practice is becoming increasingly weighted towards the Chapter 11 bankruptcy, workout, and general creditors' rights side of the ledger, I freely acknowledge being completely captivated (in the intellectual isn't it cool that something I do work about is being talked about a lot way) by the distressed financial plight of Detroit's Big Three automakers and the various proposals being bandied about  as possible solutions.  The bankruptcy alternative - prepackaged or otherwise - has of course been of particular professional interest to me, mainly because it - properly tweaked - may just be the only way out of this mess.  

One could easily spend entire days just Googling away on this topic without running out of interesting and informative blog posts, news feeds, and websites to read.  Everyone seems to understand and agree that SOMETHING has to be done, but after that, the WHAT and HOW become murky and a source of great disagreement.  And most recently, we're now hearing that a "study" -  to which we all tend naturally to give great weight -- claims that a bankruptcy of at least two U.S. automakers would cost as much as FOUR times more than a "bridge loan" from the federal government.    

So, how to make sense of all this and figure out what it really makes sense to back?  Three detailed discussions of proposed strategies for addressing the crisis have caught my attention  which I think help illustrate the various arguments being made.  I wanted to highlight those, along with some commentary of my own.

  • NYU School of Business Professor Edward Altman, who recently testified on Capital Hill presents "My View: Why GM Should File for Bankruptcy" on the Turnaround Management Association website.    
  • Weathorford School of Management (Case Western Reserve University) Professor of Economics Susan Helper and Wharton School of Business (University of Pennsylvania) Associate Professor John Paul MacDuffie, self described "scholars who have spent our professional lives studying the auto industry" advocate a "Better Than a Bailout" nonbankruptcy plan in a recent issue of The New Republic magazine.   
  • Corporate bankruptcy attorney Richard N. Tilton sets out a very detailed proposal in "GM Death Watch 219: GM Prepackaged Reorganization"  in a guest post on the Truth About Cars blog which I think comes closest to my view that some form of bankruptcy is necessary, but the significant participation of the feds is still a crucial component 

Altman: Bankruptcy IS the Answer.   Altman advocates forcing General Motors (and presumably at least Chrysler, if not Ford, as well) into Chapter  11, although he acknowledges that the U.S. government may have to be the DIP (debtor-in-possession aka post banklruptcy filing company for the uninitiated - see, isn't bankruptcy fun with its terms of art?)  lender.  Altman's conclusion:

Management and boards of Detroit's Big Three "which have been in a state of denial, should face up to the reality of their dismal outlook and request the DIP loan.  The government should be given the choice of supporting this unique rescue,  concluding that it would be better for the country and the economy to 'right-size' the U.S. Auto business now and make it more competititive, rather than to have it deteriorate further and to be sold off at a later date with even  ore lost jobs and cuts in pensionn, /health care benefits. " 

In support of his conclusion, Altman makes the following points:

  • "All this talk about a government rescue of General Motors and other automakers is misguided, likely a waste of taxpayers' money, and a potential dimunition in the creditworthiness of the U.S. government."
  • Absent bankruptcy, the automakers face not only the prospect of a severe prolonged U.S. recession, but also "the weight of their own inefficiencies, huge pension and health care benefit packages, and their now clear bankrupt profiles," things much more difficult to address outside bankruptcy.
  • Chapter 11 provides enormous benefits  and options to companies availing themselves of its protections, including protecting their assets, suspending fixed payments on most liabilities, allowing superpriority lending to occur in the form of DIP lending  which substantially reduces the risk to lenders, and "enhanc[ing] the ability of management to renegotiate existing and legacy pension and health care claims."

Avoid Bankruptcy - It's the Kiss of Death.  In contrast to Altman, Susan Helper and John Paul MacDuffe contend that a nonbankruptcy solution is the preferable choice.  They start, logically enough, with an examination of the companies themselves and their strengths and weaknesses.  Unlike many commentators, their view is that "labor costs are  no longer a big problem," (although they do acknowledge that obligations to retirees remain an issue).  They also point out that labor costs only account for perhaps ten percent of the overall cost of an automobile .  Helper and MacDuffe say that larger challenge for the automakers is relations with parts suppliers and having a better understanding of how to utilize their leverage with suppliers appropriately.  As they see it,

The companies really are too big, although the problem starts with the number of brands, rather than the number of factories.  Each brand has its own set of delaers, each of whom demands vehicles and attention to their product lines.  It's impossible for the companies to fill out each brand's lineup  with innovative, quality products -- let alone to  market each of them appropriately.  In other words, it's hard for GM to push Pontiac, when  it's also pushing Buick, Chevrolet, and Saturn.  (emphasis supplied)

Helper and MacDuffe see several problems with forcing bankruptcy on the Big Three automakers:

  • Incentives inherent in Chapter 11 might discourage the automakers from further integrating production techniques in favor of focusing on short-term profits even more relentless.
  • Consumers may be concerned about warranties, continued availability of service and parts, and other drawbacks of purchasing a vehicle from a company in bankruptcy.  
  • Suppliers would be unsecured creditors and would receive substantially reduced payouts on their debts, something their precarious financial situation may not be able to weather.

Helper's and MacDuffe's solution is similar to what has been recently been discussed on Capital Hill in the sense that it seeks to mimic the effect and benefits of a Chapter 11 proceeding without the "disgrace" of filing.  According to them, this solution

could not only spare GM -- and its counterparts -- much of the messy, wasteful litigation that goes with Chapter 11 filings; it could also encourage the right kind of restructuring.  Instead of simply paying people less for doing the same inappropriate tasks they used to do, the Detroit Three would further change the way they design, build, and sell cars -- yielding a set of smaller more sustainable automakers headquartered in the United States.   (emphasis supplied)

 Their plan:

instead of letting a bankruptcy judge supervise the process, the government would appoint a special advisory committee to oversee the process.  This committee would consist of knowledgeable, independent monitors -- a mixture of former industry executives with experience working for Toyota or Honda' academics who study the industry; and experts in aternative engine technology or labor-management collaboration.  It would, naturally, have a director and full-time staff, plus the ability to work with outside consultants.  Under the scenario we envision, the committtee would set goals and require the companies to report on progress quarterly, as a condition for obtaining additional funds.  If a company missed its goals for, say, two quarters in a row, the committee would then provide only enough funds to prepare for liquidation or nationalization.  (Leftover money could go to retraining workers and softening the blow of downisizing on communities.}

Prepack Bankruptcy - with a Twist - Is the Way to Go.   Finally, Richard Tilton (who is apparently keeping a really low internet profile since I really wanted to add a link to him and couldn't find anything), in a somewhat lengthy (by internet blog posting standards), but useful article, succinctly recognizes the basic problem facing the Big Three:

GM's legal obligations to bondholders and trade creditors cannot be changed or modified without a bankruptcy, or the written consent of ech individual creditor.  That's a near impossible task.  Attempting to reorganize GM outside of a legal proceeding would encourage creditors to holdouts (sic) for special treatment, delaying  any chance at restructuiring.

  His points:

  • While a true "prepack" Chapter 11 bankruptcy would by definition involve the agreement of all major stakeholders, that is not absolutely essential so long as the U.S. Treasury as sgined on to be the DIP lender.
  • Because Chapter 11 allows DIPs to stop paying interest or principal on unsecured debt, cash available for operations will be increased.
  • Although the automakers have significant obligations to retirees, these are unsecured claims under the Bankruptcy Code and therefore would be frozen and entitled to less favorable treatment in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
  • The assertion of Detroit's Big Three  that "millions of jobs will be 'lost' ignores the simple fact that companies continue to operate their businesses while in chapter 11, albeit under a great deal of scrutiny ....  While it is definitely a lot of paperwork, legal and turnaround professionals do this type pf work every day."
  •  "A GM reorganization paln  must be based upon a realistic projection of future profitability.  Future cash flows will determine the enterprise value of the reorganized company, and hence the value of new  common shares which will be distributed under the plan."

His plan:

  • U.S. Treasury extends a secured  DIP loan in the amount of perhaps $40 billion.  "Taxpayers should demand that any loan made to GM be made only in connection with GM's Chapter 11 filing, that it be fully secutred, and only disbursed pursuant to detailed written budgets."
  • A portion of the U.S. Treasury DIP loan "should be available to support essential suppliers throough loans, letters of credit and pre-payments."
  • "Since the government lacks experience in administering secured loans to insolvent companies in Chapter 11 reorganizations, it might be preferable to have the loan guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury.  Funds would be advanced periodically by a consortium of financial institutions experienced in lending to Chapter 11 debtors.  They'd be better able to monitor day-to-day compliance within the terms and covenants of the loan."  
  • "potential future liabilities [for payments to the retiree trust for rtiree benefits]... not only would weigh heavily on GM's post reorganization success. but also would depress the market value of ay new common shares issued by GM.  With creditor consent, the retiree trust could receive  subordiated debt, with future maturity dates timed to GM's future profitability."
  • Existing shareholders get NOTHING.
  • New Board of Directors includes representation from major creditor stakeholders and constituencies..   

Under his hypothetical plan, Tilton forsees: 

  • Taxpayers getting a warrant for 10% of GM's post-confirmation stock as security for the repayment of the DIP loan.
  • GM's existing secued creditors will stay in place and be treated in accordance with federal bankruptcy law
  • Warranty claims assumed under plan
  • Unsecured debt, including bondholder, trade payables, legacy/retiree claims, and other unsecured claims get their pro rata share of the stock of the reorganized automaker

 

I don't pretend to know the answer to the crisis presented by the financial problems of Detroit's Big Three automakers, although I am beginning to form a definite opinion which I'll share in a subsequent post.  I do, however, think it's very important for each of us to think hard about this and about what should be done.  Hopefully, these three proposals can be helpful in ordering and organizing that analysis. 

Detroit's Big Three Just Haven't Done the Work Needed for a Prepackaged - or Even Prenegotiated - Bankruptcy

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last few weeks, you are all too painfully aware that General Motors, Chrysler Corporation -- and to a lesser, but still significant extent, Ford Motor Company --- are in DEEP DEEP TROUBLE.  And that like any other red-blooded American when the "going gets tough", they are looking to the government to make it all better... or else....  >>> well, no one really wants to find out if it really would be the end of American prosperity as we know it. 

General Motors has even established a website called GM Facts and Fiction to present its position. 

The New York Times Live Blog summary of last week's hearings on Capital Hill as they were occurring is well worth a click for Thursday's Senate Banking Committee proceedings and here for Friday's House Financial Services Committee hearing.

Problem Solved?  Based on the most recent news reports, it sounds as if the Big Three Detroit automakers  may have managed to stave off the day of reckoning for at least a while.  Apparently, Congress has decided to give them the proverbial "half a loaf" by allowing  $$ already ticketed their way to assist in the development of more fuel efficient vehicles to be utilized more generally.   (Click here for the NYT perspective, here for Detroit Free Press perspective, together withn its rundown of the Sunday morning news talk shows,

Unfortunately, no one really believes that this is anything remotely approaching a permanent solution.  Chrysler is already apparently hedging its best, having reportedly retained Jones Day as potential bankruptcy counsel.  

SO the question remains, ultimately what should be done?  Is the American automobile manufacturing industry really too big and too intrinsic a part of the overall American economy to "let" fail?  Or are those who say that bankruptcy with its unique provisions is really the only true hope for a beneficial solution actually correct?  A couple of my favorite quotes (and there are many) so far on this whole mess:

  • Courtesy of Friday's, Grand Rapids Press in a story entitled "Hey Congress: 'Prepackaged bankruptcy' for automakers is bad idea -- and impossible" >>> "The Detroit Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than GM has of getting a prepackaged bankruptcy," said John Wykamp, a business restructuring expert at the Grand Rapids office of Crowe Horwath LLP.   
  •  
  • "Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create…. And Congress must do all this by NOT giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit rating blacklist)."  - Michael Moore >>> Read the WHOLE post !

Prepackaged Bankruptcy a Solution?   Although a part of the answer to this question is certainly politically based, depending  in part perhaps on how one views labor unions and/or "legacy costs",  or one's overall philosophy on economic policy, there is also a more pragmatic element which is sometimes misunderstood or overlooked.  One of the possiblities being thrown around of late is something now being referred to as a "pre-arranged bankruptcy", a variant of the "prepackaged bankruptcy" option.  (For a general discussion of this variety of Chapter 11 bankruptcy and its basic operation, read my previous post "How Prepackaged Bankruptcy REALLY Works".

Prepackaged bankruptcy - that's gotta be "the ticket", the one terrific solution, for the mess America's Big three automakers find themselves in, right?  And what could possibly be more interesting for business bankruptcy practitioner like myself than the ultimate Chapter 11 prepack?!!!?   (Click herehere, here, and here for general discussions of the push towards the prepack option.)

The problem is - it's not.  While I, like many others, found the concept initially attractive (and let's face it, downright exciting from a professional creditors' rights attorney perspective), as I've thought harder about it,  I've realized it's just not the panacea we're all looking for to solve this aspect of our growing financial crisis.  Some form of a a prepack still has a role to play, but it it won't be the pure form of a prepack, prenegotiated, or even pre-arranged bankruptcy; substantial government involvement will still be required to maximize the opportunities offered by the prepack option.  Why?

Those jumping on the "why not bankruptcy?" bandwagon early with respect to Detroit's Big Three tended to focus on (1) the ability under the Bankruptcy Code for the automakers to rid themselves of burdensome contracts such as perhaps obligations to the autoworker unions and dealers, as well as "legacy costs" for retiree benefits; and  (2) the perceived efficiency of the prepackaged bankruptcy option in comparison with the average Chapter 11 proceeding.

     >>>  Breaking Burdensome Contracts

As far as the ability to make changes to union collective bargaining agreements and other burdensome contracts, it is certainly true that the Bankruptcy Code has some useful provisons the auto companies might be able to utilize to their benefit.  However, the full benefit of section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to union contracts, section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to pension and retiree benefits, and section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code would almost certainly NOT be a part of a prepack.  Rather full exploitation of these provisions from the automaker perspective would almost certainly prolong any bankruptcy proceeding.  At most the power of these provisions might allow the automakers to drive a harder bargain in the context of a possible prepack.

     >>>  Prepack Efficiencies    

Although the time ACTUALLY SPENT IN BANKRUPTCY is generally less by design in prepacks, it would be fallacious to conclude that the overall time to a solution is in fact any shorter than when the more traditional Chapter 11 path is followed.  Key to the success of any prepack variation is the prepetition agreement of the major players to the financial reorganization of the financially distressed company.  In the case of Detroit's automakers, there are a number of different constituencies with conflicting objectives and needs who have yet to reach common agreement.

Given what appears to be an especially stubborn refusal on the part of the automakers to even remotely consider any sort of bankruptcy type scenario of any kind until quite recently, it seems unlikely that any substantial productive discussions have yet occurred with any of these crucial partners to a successful prepack.  To achieve the benefit of a prepack, votes for a specifically delineated plan of reorganization have to have been successfully solicited before any filing is ever made.  Because the automakers don't even have such a plan, let alone gotten the requisite buy-in, or even the beginnings of the negotiation of acceptable terms, the prepack option isn't realistically even on the table!

Recent reports suggesting some willingness on the part of union leaders to discuss union contracts and the "legacy costs" of retiree benefits is certainly a hopeful sign that the productive discussions with major stakeholders so necessary to a successful prepack may actually be beginning.  But it is only a beginning and a long way from the uanimity or at the very least general agreement needed among the principal players!!

Where Things Stand.   Hopefully,the brief respite Detroit's Big Three Automakers may now receive will be put to good use.  What needs to happen now is for them to focus on building a specific restructuring plan and developing a strategy for obtaing the needed support from lenders, unions, and others, including Congress.  Within limits - mainly relating to the likely need for involvement of the feds in some capacity with respect to some sort of postpetition DIP and exit financing -- a prepack is still a possible alternative.  There's just a heckuva lot Detroit's Big Three need to do to position themselves properly to beneift from such an option.   

How Prepackaged Bankruptcy REALLY Works

If you've been paying any attention at all to the national news of late, you know that Detroit's Big Three automakers are in deep trouble and that a substantial number of folks seem to think that forcing them into a "prepackaged " bankruptcy is the ANSWER.  When I first heard this, I thought this seemed like a pretty good idea ....  until I started really thinking about both what can and can't be accomplished  with this sort of Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding

So in a two-part post, I want to first explore the nature of the beast  those of us in the "biz" call a "prepack" and then focus more specifically on how it might actually operate in the context of the problems being faced by America's automakers.  While superfically appealing, a prepack is far from the panacea some seem to think it could be.  To understand why, you first have to understand how prepacks work in general.

Prepack Coming of Age.  Chapter 11 (and they always are Chapter 11 reorganizations) prepackaged bankruptcies came to the fore about twenty years ago.  Many say that  Dallas based hospital owner Republic Health Corp. was the first successful prepack with a plan confirmed less than five months later.  Prepacks became somewhat more popular during the 1990's in the context of failed LBO's, to implement mass-tort settlements, or as a vehicle to consummate sales or mergers of companies.   In the August issue of the Turnaround Management Association's Journal of Corporate Renewal, an article by Douglas Foley and James Van Horn entitled "Prepacks on the Rise in Chapter 11 Bankruptcies Prenegotiated Plans Can Accelerate Reorganization", asserts that there has recently been renewed interest in this variation of Chapter 11 with four filed in 2007 and more than a dozen filed in the first half of 2008. 

Companies utilizing the prepackaged option have included Donald Trump's Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, Zenith Electronics, Aurora Foods-Pinnacle Foods merger, and TWA.  More recent participants have included Davis Petroleum (Case No. 06-20152, Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (whose plan was confirmed less than a week after filing), Blue Bird Body Co. (Case No. 06-50026, Bankr. D. Nev.), Bally Total Fitness (Case No.07-12395, Bankr. S.D.N. Y.), and Mrs. Fields' Original Cookies (Case No. 08 - 11953 , Bankr. D. Del.) (plan confirmed in less than sixty days after bankruptcy filed).

To promote organization and judicial economy, some jurisdictions such as the Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court and the Southern District of New York Bankrptcy Court have even adopted local rules governing prepackaged bankruptcies.   

Prepack Advantages.  The hallmark and principal advantage of a successful prepack is a substantial savings in time and disruption as compared with the ordinary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.  The average Chapter 11 case, even a relatively small one, is rarely likely to be completed in less than a year and it can often take two or three years, or even longer, for a company to emerge from Chapter 11.  By contrast, prepackaged cases typically take less than six months, thus saving both time and money typically spent on case administration.  Conventional wisdom also holds that deterioration of the intrinsic value of a business which is often a consequence of a Chapter 11 filing and the attendant uncertainty is lessened through use of the prepackaged option.  (For a general discussion of the general effect of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy on a public company's shareholders, visit the discusssion of "What Every investor Should Know ... Corporate Bankruptcy" on the SEC's website.)

Technically, a prepackaged bankruptcy differs from a prenegotiated bankruptcy in that votes for a plan of reorganization have already been solicited and agreed upon prior to the filing, thereby leaving nothing to chance when it comes to achieving a successful confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization.  In a prenegotiated bankruptcy, actual votes or agreements to vote have not yet been reached with the critical mass of creditors, although resolution has typically been reached with those creditors deemed most crucial to success. 

The most important characteristic of a prepack  (or a prenegotiated bankruptcy) is that the major players in the bankruptcy have come to an agreement among themselves about the most important issues of subsequent financing, lien priority, and the extent to which the debt owing will be discounted or terms of repayment extended.  This reduces the potential for the debtor to lose control of the proceeding and allows it to proceed directly to its contemplted reorganized operations.  By minimizing the time spent subject to the restrictions and various oversight provisions embodied in the Bankruptcy Code and reaching important agreement before  even filing, the liklihood of full blown creditor second-guessing and need to balance the influence of various interests is thought to be significantly and productively decreased. 

Nuts and BoltsSection 1126(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3018(b) explicitly allow prepetiton solicitation of votes for approval of a Plan of Reorganization as long as certain procedures are observed.  The key elements to a successful prepetiton solicitation crtical to making a prepack a "go" are:

  • The proposed plan must have been transmitted to substantially all creditors or equity security holders entitled  to vote in a class;
  • Sufficient time  must have been allowed for voting (or in the words of the statute, the time allowed must not be "unreasonably short" which is of courae a case by case judgment call)
  • Those solicited must have been provided with "adequate information" in connection with the solicitation of their vote.
  • The provisions of any applicable nonbankruptcy law  such as federal securities law governing communication with shareholders of public companies must be complied with.

In essence, a prepack allows the debtor to bypass the lengthy time (starting with a 25 day notice period  for a hearing on the Disclosure Statement) involved in getting a disclosure statement approved by the Bankruptcy Court, distributed to creditors, and gathering/tabulating ballots approving or rejecting the proposed Plan of Reorganization.  There is of course the risk that the Court will determine after the fact that the prepetition solicitation process did not meet the requirements set forth above; this can happen either as a result of a motion by a party in interest on the Court can make such a finding on its own initiative.

What a prepack does not do, however, is change the requirements concerning creditor approval of a Plan of Reorganization.  Pursuant to section 1126(c), a class of "impaired" creditors (i.e. those not being paid in full) will be deemed to have accepted the plan if and only if the creditors in that class voting hold two-thirds in amount and at least a majority in number of claims voted do in fact vote to accept the plan.  In addition, pursuant to section 1129(a)(10), the plan cannot be confirmed unless at least one class of impaired creditors vote to accept the plan.  there are also the other usual requirements of feasibility and the like. 

Prepack Risks and Obstacles.  Prepackaged bankruptcies tend to work best where there are a limited number of sophisticated secured creditors involved with whom productive negotiations can actually be had.  They tend to work less well when a debtor has a large number of creditors, especially if unsecured, with a variety of different claims ( e.g. trade creditors, employees, landlords, equipment lessors,etc.) entitled to varying treatment under the Bankruptcy Code and which may fluctuate considerably during the period immediately preceding a filing.  Large numbers of contingent claims can also be an obstacle for the obvious reason that time must be spent determining how to estimate the amount of such claims.

In addition, by immediately proceeding to the plan confirmation phase, a debtor does lose the benefit of the "breathing spell" provided by the automatic stay which arises immediately upon the filing of the petition.  And, of course, it does tip the debtor's hand as to its financial distress (which may often be obvious anyway).

Drawing Conclusions.  While there are certainly some useful rights and remedies available to Detroit's Big Three should they decide to file Chapter 11 - being able to shed burdensome labor and/or dealer contracts springs to mind - there are also substantial risks - will consumers continue to spend thousands of dollars to buy vehicles from a car company in bankruptcy.   Prepackaged bankruptcy seems to be advanced by many of its advocates as a way to maximize the advantages of being a Chapter 11 debtor while eliiminating the "down side" of a bankruptcy filing.  I just don't think it's that simple.

So next time I will focus more specifically on how well suited the prepack option really is for Detroit's Big Three and what it might and might not be able to do for them.,

UPDATE:  In the first quarter of 2009, prepackaged bankruptcies hit an 8 year high with more than in all of 2008.

Also thanks to Scott Jagow of American Public Media's Scratch Pad for putting a practical spin on how this would apply in a Chrysler bankruptcy.

Even the Bankruptcy Code Goes Global - Introducing Chapter 15

Although I've practiced bankruptcy law for more than twenty years, when I first heard about Chapter 15, I thought it must be shorthand for another serial bankruptcy filing combination.  After all, I'd quickly adapted to Chapter 20 in which a Chapter 13 proceeding is followed by a Chapter 7 and I'm certainly familar with Chapter 22 consisting of successive Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings. 

But Chapter 15?  For the uninitiated, Chapter 15 was added to the Bankruptcy Code as part of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act which is perhaps better known for its credit card industry inspired "means testing" provisions restricting consumer use of Chapter 7.  Chapter 15 addresses cross-border insolvencies and offers a way for debtors involved in foreign insolvency proceedings to administer assets found in the U.S.  In plain English, it deals with situations in which assets, creditors, or affiliates of the debtor exist in more than one country.  According to 11 U.S.C. 1501, Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code is designed to

  • promote cooperation between the United States courts and parties in interest and the courts and other competent authorities of foreign countries involved in cross-border insolvency cases; 
  • establish greater legal certainty for trade and investment;
  • provide for the fair and efficient administration of cross-border insolvencies that protects the interests of all creditors and other interested entities, including the debtor;
  • afford protection and maximization of the value of the debtor's assets; and
  • facilitate the rescue of financially troubled businesses, thereby protecting investment and preserving employment.

>>>>>>>>>   Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code is still not well known, but there are some useful resources available to anyone wanting to know more.

There is a good overview of the statutory provisions making up Chapter 15 on the U.S. Courts website.

The Canadian law firm of Cassels offers a Canadian view of the important provisions of Chapter 15 and how it addresses issues of particular concern to domestic creditors.

Bob Eisenbach of the In the (Red) business bankruptcy blog provides a terrific summary of the major substantive aspects of Chapter 15 and how it works on a practical level.  Among other useful information, Bob explains that if a U.S. Bankruptcy Court "recognizes' a "main" insolvency proceeding pending outside the United States, the foreign debtor receives important protections such as the application of the automatic stay to U.S. creditors and assets without the necessity of a separate U.S. filing.  There are also other provisions giving U.S. bankruptcy courts discretion to grant other appropriate relief. 

For those wanting to follow Chapter 15 cases in detail, Chapter15.com is an invaluable resource.  In addition to various commentary on the pertinent law, Chapter15.com provides summary information about cases and related foreign proceedings, as well links to the dockets and pleadings for Chapter 15 cases filed throughout the U.S.  The website's database is searchable in a variety of ways, including by court, debtor, filing date, and industry.

While many cases are filed in New York as one might expect, at least one case has been filed in every circuit according to Chapter15.com.  In Ohio, the following cases involving Canadian insolvencies have been filed, including a recent filing here in the Southern District of Ohio:

  • In the Northern  District of Ohio >>>  Kirshan K. Sudan, Case No. 07-11166, Judge Harris 
  • In the Southern District of Ohio >>>  ROL Manufacturing (Canada) Ltd., Case No. 08-31022, Judge Walter presiding
    • Marwil, Inc., Case No. 08-31029, Judge Walter presiding
    • ROL Holdings USA, Inc., Case No. 08-31025, Judge Walter presiding
    • ROL Holdings (Canada) Inc., Case No. 08-31024, Judge Walter presiding
    • ROL Manufacturing of America, Inc. Case No. 08-31027, Judge Walter presiding

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.

Skybus Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition Filed

Columbus based Skybus Airlines, Inc. (which is a Delaware corporation) has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware, Case No. 08-10637-CSS. Judge Christopher S. Sontchi will be presiding. Click here for the story by Bloomberg.com. Also read the initial story on the shut down as reported by the Columbus Dispatch. The Columbus Regional Airport Authority is listed among the Twenty Largest Creditors (having unsecured debt) with a debt in the amount of $200,000.00.

Skybus is the third airline to file for bankruptcy protection in the last three weeks.

UPDATE: The Docket Sheet for the first week of the Skybus Chapter 11 shows relatively little activity for a case this size.

On April 8, Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann provided this advice for Skybus customers, including a sample letter to send to your credit card company.

On April 15, 2008, a Class Action Adversary Proceeding Complaint (Adv. Pro. No. 08-50570) on behalf of Skybus employees was filed seeking damages consisting of 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits. The putative (i.e. not yet certified as a class action) class action asserts that approximately 450 individuals are affected and contends that Skybus violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (aka and better known as the "WARN Act") in the way it ended operations. The action also seeks to obtain "administrative priority" for the claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(A) which would put them in the same category as the lawyers and other professionals working on the case for Skybus. This is a smart move because, if successful, it would require Skybus employees to be paid ahead of other unsecured creditors, including Skybus ticketholders unable to obtain a refund from their credit card company.

C.V. Perry Receivership Update - Part I: Case Specifics

In connection with the downfall of the C.V. Perry homebuilder entities, I have previously posted on the increasing use of receivership in place of bankruptcy. It's been a few months since then and perhaps time for an update, as well as some commentary.

This is the first of a two-part series concerning events in the case itself and some reflections on what it all means. In this post, I want to provide some more detailed information about the case, some of its players, and the context in which it is happening. In Part II, I will explore the influence of federal bankruptcy law in the case.

Parties. First, more info on the basics. The C.V. Perry receivership actually involves multiple related entities, consisting of limited liability companies in which C.V. Perry & Co. was the sole member. In addition to C.V. Perry & Co., the receivership case also includes the judicial administration and winding up of the following entities (collectively, along with C.V. Perry & Co., I'll refer to as "Perry Entities"):

  • C.V. Perry Builders, LLC
  • C.V. Builders II, LLC
  • Manors at Homestead, LLC
  • Pointe at Blacklick, LLC
  • Manors at CrossCreeks, LLC
  • C.V. Land II, LLC
  • Arlington Remodeling, LLC

Martin Management Services, Inc., through its principal Reg Martin is the court appointed "Receiver and Liquidating Trustee" (more on what this means below) and is represented by the law firm of Strip, Hoppers, Leithart, McGrath & Terlecky Co., LPA. Judge John F. Bender is presiding.

Following Case Progress. Anyone wanting to follow this case closely can visit the Franklin County Clerk of Court's website and enter Case No. 07MS-11-454 (you don't actually have to enter the "11" as that is simply a notation indicating the case was filed in November) to see the docket showing the pleadings which have been filed. To see copies of pleadings, you can make a personal visit to the Franklin County Clerk of Courts and view them on computer terminals provided there.

Original Complaint. According to the Perry Entities' receivership Complaint, filed November 7, 2007, the impetus for seeking appointment of a receiver/liquidating trustee resulted from such problems as (1) numerous cognovit judgments having been taken against the Perry Entities by The Home Savings and Loan Company of Youngstown; (2) dozens of mechanics' liens filed against Perry Entities; and (3) numerous other lawsuits filed against the Perry Entities. The Complaint for Judicial Administration of Winding Up of Affairs of Voluntarily Dissolved Corporation and Limited Liability Companies has eight counts which are:

  • Appointment of Receiver for C.V. Perry; R.C. 1701.89(A)(8)
  • Appointment of Liquidating Trustee for the Limited Liability Companies; R.C. 1705.44
  • Establishment of Proof of Claims Procedure; R.C. 1701.89(A)(1), 1705.45 and 1705.46
  • Settlement or Determination of Claims; R.C. 1701.89(A)(3), 1705.45 and 1705.46
  • Determination of Rights of Holders of Shares; 1701.89(A)(4), 1705.45 and 1705.46
  • Presentation and Filing of Receiver's and Liquidations Trustee's Account; R.C. 1701.89(A)(5) and 1705.44
  • Injuctive Relief; R.C. 1701.89(A)(9) and 1705.44
  • Allowance and Payment of Compensation to Receiver, Liquidating Trustee, Attorneys, Accountants, and other Persons; R.C. 1701.89(A)(10) and 1705.44

Order Appointing Receiver and Liquidating Trustee. An initial Order appointing the receiver/liquidating trustee was entered the same day as the Complaint was filed, but an Amended Order Appointing Receiver and Liquidating Trustee was entered on December 5, 2007. The Amended Order granted the relief sought in the Complaint and required the newly appointed Receiver and Liquidating Trustee to post a bond of $100.00 with the Franklin County Clerk of Court.

So why the appointment as Receiver and Liquidating Trustee? Simply put, what statutory authority Ohio has concerning the liquidation and winding up of the affairs of business entities are slightly different with respect to corporations and limited liability companies. Ohio Rev. Code 1701.89, applying to corporations, references appointment of a receiver. Ohio Rev. Code 1705.44, the analogous statute for LLCs, refers to a "liquidating trustee".

Local Rule 93. In addition to these statutes, Franklin County Court of Pleas Common Pleas Court Local Rule 93 (courts elsewhere in Ohio will have their own rules which may differ in important respects from this rule) will govern procedures and events in this case. Among other provisions, Local Rule 93 requires the filing of an initial inventory and appraisal of the assets of the entity placed in receivership by the court appointed receiver within two months of his or her appointment, together with receipts and disbursements received and made to that point. It also restricts a receiver's fees to no more than $75 an hour and caps fees for counsel for a receiver at $150,000 (which may seem like a lot, but in this case may pose a problem for the receiver's counsel).

Events. What's happened so far has mainly been authorization to sell certain properties, establishment of a "proof of claim" procedure, and a fair amount of sparring about "administrative priority". I'll talk about the latter two of these in my next post.

So that's the lay of the land. In Part II, I will focus on the influence of federal bankruptcy law on these receivership proceedings.

Responding to a Bankruptcy Preference Claim

As a bankruptcy attorney who mostly represents creditors, I am not infrequently asked to assist companies who have recently received correspondence demanding that they repay thousands of dollars of payments received from a now bankrupt customer because it's a "preference". Often this happens well into the bankruptcy proceeding and long after the creditor has closed its books on the account, perhaps even writing off a remaining balance as uncollectible. If you have been unfortunate enough to be tagged for a "preference", the most important thing to remember is that you still have options and it is not always necessary to just write a check for the amount demanded.

Bizpointer>>> As a practical matter, it is NEVER wrong for a creditor to accept a payment even if the creditor thinks it might be a "preference". For one thing, the failing company may last longer than you think and may not file until after the payment to you is outside the ninety day preference period. In addition, to recover, it is the debtor which must demonstrate its "insolvency" at the time the payment was made. Furthermore, there are a number of defenses which can be asserted which can wind up justifying the creditor's receipt of the payment. Finally, preference actions are typically matters especially susceptible to neogtiation and settlement which may allow creditors to keep a portion of the prefernce payment.

Bankruptcy Preference Defined. So what, exactly, is a "preference" and what should you do if you get one of these letters, or worse, actually get sued? Basically, a "preference" is a payment that allows the recipient to receive more than their fair share of the now bankrupt customer's available cash and assets. The Bankruptcy Code says that a "preference" must be repaid because it frustrates the underlying policy of federal bankruptcy law that similar creditors should be treated in a similar fashion. This policy is intended to discourage a mad grab by creditors that might accelerate a financially ailing company's slide into bankruptcy.

On a more technical level, section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code defines a "preference" as a payment

  • On an antecedent (i.e. past due) debt owed to a creditor;
  • Made while the now bankrupt customer was "insolvent";
  • Within 90 days (or a year, if the creditor is an "insider" such as a shareholder, officer, or director of the bankrupt debtor, or another affiliated company) before the date the bankruptcy proceeding was filed; AND
  • That allowed the creditor to receive more on its claim than it would have had the payment not been made and the claim paid through the bankruptcy proceeding.

Banks and other creditors holding collateral for a debt can wind up receiving a preference payment if they are owed more than the collateral is worth. However, it is unsecured creditors such as the ordinary trade creditor in the form of suppliers, product inventors, and service providers that are the most vulnerable. In addition, it is important to understand that a preference claim can be asserted against a creditor even if the debtor still owes money to the creditor after the payment.

How to Respond. The records of a company in bankruptcy are, not surprisingly, often disorganized and sometimes incomplete. As a result, the net for possible preference payments is usually cast far wider than the true universe of actual preference payments. Thus, once fingered as a possible preference payment defendant, it is crucial to do a thorough "preference analysis" to determine whether there is really any actual liability.

A bankruptcy and creditors' rights attorney has the skills and experience to assist with this crucial task of evaluating what the likely liability exposure is. Martindale-Hubbell's Counsel to Counsel magazine offers this helpful, but very brief, overview of action steps and conceptual considerations that should be undertaken by any company being confronted with preference allegations.

  • The CMA Daily News offers several suggestions about how to avoid being in a preference payment situation by taking certain preventive action such as requiring payment in advance of supplying goods or services.
  • Thomas Onder of the New Jersey Law Blog recommends that, before contacting your attorney, you should try to gather a full payment history for the period of at least the year before the payment was made. A copy of all invoices showing both sales and payments received during this period is essential to a good defense. In addition, copies of any correspondence (including e-mail), contracts, checks, or other evidence of payments received can be extremely helpful. If you can determine the number of days which generally elapsed between presentation of the invoices and receipt of payment and detect any patterns, that can also be useful.
  • Why is this information useful? Well, the two leading defenses to a preference action rely upon what this information can show. The "contemporaneous exchange" defense found in section 547(c)(1) excepts payments where the debtor receives something of value at the same time the payment is made. A related defense depends upon the amount of "subsequent new value" extended to the debtor by the creditor. Alternatively, the "ordinary course" argument based on section 547(c)(2) rests upon a demonstration that a payment comported with a reasonable course of dealing between the creditor and the debtor.

How This Helps in the Defense of a Preference Action. A preference analysis can utilize this information and preventive action to determine whether there is in fact a defense to the demand for repayment of the alleged preference payment. Three of the most common defenses are:

Contemporaneous Exchange. In many cases, as the now bankrupt customer begins to have more and more severe financial problems, there will be times in which the need for a particular shipment of goods or services is so great, that there will be payment for that particular shipment. When the shipment of goods or services and receipt of payment for those goods and services happen more or less at the same time, there is said to be a "contemporaneous exchange", constituting an exception within the meaning of section 547(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Ordinary Course of Business. Section 547(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code offers another defense if the payment was made in the "ordinary course of business or financial affairs" of the creditor and bankrupt customer in payment of a debt "incurred in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs" of the parties. Payment made "according to ordinary business terms" are also excepted. Thus, both the course of dealing between the parties as well as customs in the relevant industry can be important. Changes in the Bamkruptcy Code in the last few years has made it somewhat easier to rely upon this defense.

Subsequent New Value. Sometimes, even as a financially distressed company struggles for survival, it is able to induce creditors to continue doing business with it, perhaps on the strength of a promise to get everything caught up in the near future or a partial payment of the past due amount. If there are both payments and supplying of goods and/or services within the ninety day "preference period", it is likely that the "subsequent new value" defense found in section 547(c)(4) will be applicable at least to some extent. If applicable, the amount of "subsequent new value" extended will be subtracted from the amount of payments received.

All of these defenses depend greatly on the timing of invoices and payments and require a careful legal analysis of the creditor's documentation. Once a preference analysis has been completed by a bankruptcy attorney, you will have a much better idea of the strength of your case. This will then allow you to make a legally informed decision whether to fight or negotiate your best settlement quickly, thus minimizing the cost both in the amount paid back and attorneys' fees.

UPDATE: David Lerner, an attorney in the Bloomfield Hills office of my Plunkett Conney law firm, has made this excellent half hour presentation (webinar with streaming audio and video lasting about a half hour) covering the basics anyone needs to know about bankruptcy preference law. 

Receivership as an Alternative to Bankruptcy

About a week ago, established Central Ohio custom home builder C.V. Perry & Co. was placed in state court receivership to liquidate its assets.  (Case No.07-MS-454 in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Judge Bender presiding - click here to visit the court's website and see the latest docket.)  C.V. Perry & Co. had been in business for sixty years and had faced increasing financial difficulties following the death of its founder and founder's son in 2004.  Click here to read more about what led up to the company's decision to shut down operations. 

What is most interesting about this development is the choice to utilize relatively vague state court receivership law rather than a more well-defined federal bankruptcy proceeding.  While it's not so prevalent that one could call it a trend yet, more and more often, litigants seem to be choosing state court receivership remedies in Ohio over federal bankruptcy court.  In part, the increasing popularity of receivership may be the result of a perception that it will be less costly and complex than federal bankruptcy -- which I'm not convinced is correct.  However, I think parties are also attracted to the concept that they can define how the receivership will operate in a way not possible in the more structured federal bankruptcy proceeding.

In Ohio, receiverships are governed primarily by the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2735 and the local rules of the trial court in which the action is commenced.  In recent years, the primary use of receiverships in Ohio has been in conjunction with a foreclosure of income-producing commercial property by a mortgagee during the pendency of the lawsuit prior to the foreclosure sale.  However, Ohio Revised Code  §2735.01 also permits appointment of a receiver to carry out the terms of a judgment, in cases of corporate insolvency or "in all other cases in which receivers have been appointed by the usages of equity."  In addition, Ohio Revised Code §1701.90 specifically authorizes appointment of a receiver for the winding up of the affairs of a corporation and Ohio Revised Code §1701.91 regarding judicial dissolution of a corporation also contemplates use of a receiver.

Under Ohio law, both the circumstances justifying appointment of a receiver and the powers a receiver will have once appointed remain highly flexible.  While Ohio courts routinely note that appointment of a receiver is an "extraordinary remedy", there also seems to be substantial deference given to a trial court's determination that it is appropriate in particular circumstances.  Aside from relatively sparse case law, the only guidance regarding the scope of an Ohio receiver is found in Ohio Revised Code §2735.04 which states that a receiver "may bring and defend actions in his own name as receiver, take and keep possession of property, receive rents, collect, compound for, and compromise demands, make transfers, and generally do such acts respecting the property as the court authorizes."  Thus, unlike federal bankruptcy court where the rights and obligations of debtor and creditor are fairly clear, in an Ohio receivership action, the outer limits of permissible action by receivers has not yet been established.

Since I began practicing law more than twenty years ago, Ohio receivership law has always been a somewhat uncertain body of law.  In past years, however, that uncertainty seemed to encourage use of federal bankruptcy courts in insolvency situations.  Now, however, that very uncertainty and lack of established rules seems to be attracting both creditors and debtors as if they see receiverships as a "design your own" solution. 

At the same time, however, one can see some influence of bankruptcy law.  Orders appointing receivers now regularly contain "automatic stay" type provisions.  Frequently, a claims determination process similar to the proof of claim requirements in bankruptcy is mandated.  Asset sales are often modeled after the procedures used in bankruptcy court. 

Whether receivership is the answer in any particular case depends upon your role in the situation and what you hope to achieve in an insovency proceeding.  While the relative informality of the state court receivership is alluring, I believe  that in general both debtors, and especially creditors, are better served by participating in federal bankruptcy proceedings. 

For creditors, while I understand the attraction of perhaps being able to get orders from state court judges allowing the creditor all sorts of latitude in dealing with the assets of a debtor, I remain unconvinced that receivership will ultimately be less expensive.  The fact that there ARE established priocedures and responsibilities in a bankruptcy proceeding seem to me more likely to expedite resolution than the situation in state court receivership in which every issue is one in which almost anything could happen.  Moreover, aggreesive collection action seems more likely than receivership to result in available cash flow and assets being directed specifically in the direction of my client.

For debtors wishing to continue in business, state court receivership may actually offer a viable alternative to Chapter 11 proceedings which are indeed quite expensive.  Because Ohio receivership law is so undeveloped, there is an opportunity to choose which aspects of federal bankruptcy law are most beneficial while perhaps avoiding those considered less desirable.  Depending upon how the receiver is selected and the relationship which develops between the receiver and the principals of the debtor, state court may offer real opportunities for resurgence.  However, control over the company's business affairs may just as easily be irretrievably lost due to the sweeping scope of a receiver's powers. 

For debtors intending to liquidate, the advantage of a federal bankruptcy proceeding is that there is established law about what the effect of such a proceeding is. 

If the current trend towards utilizing state court receivership rather than federal bankruptcy court continues, it will be interesting to see how the case law develops concerning the grounds justifying appointment of a receiver and the scope of a receiver's powers once appointed.  

Dealing with a Customer's Bankruptcy

Sooner or later every business experiences the bankruptcy of one of its customers.  If the customer has a large unpaid balance, this can be an especially unnerving experience.  There are, however, some basic things to know and do.

            1.  Don't Ignore the Filing.  The most important thing not to do is continue collection action against the debtor.  When a bankruptcy is filed, it triggers an "automatic stay".  The "automatic stay" prohibits any further action or activities against -- or affecting -- the debtor, the debtor's interest, or the debtor's property.  This includes foreclosures or sheriff's sales, garnishments, collection calls and, of course, the commencement or continuation of a lawsuit.  Violation of the "automatic stay" can result in monetary fines and sanctions against the offender.

One important "exception" to the "automatic stay" does exist for creditors who have shipped goods to the debtor which have not yet been delivered at the time the bankruptcy is filed.  In this situation, the creditor may stop the goods in transit and refuse delivery unless paid in cash.

            2.  Document the Debt Owed by Filing a "Proof of Claim".  To have any reasonable hope or expectation of receiving any payment on the debt owed, a "proof of claim" must be filed with the Bankruptcy Court by the designated deadline.  Frequently, though not always, a "proof of claim" must be filed within the first four to six months after the bankruptcy has been filed so prompt action is often necessary.  You do not have to be a lawyer to complete and file the proof of claim.

The initial notice of the bankruptcy will often contain a proof of claim form that can be filed out.  The "proof of claim" should set forth the basis for the debt (i.e. the service or product purchased), attaching copies of any written contracts or documents giving rise to the debt, identify any collateral pledged to secure the debt and specify the exact amount owed to the creditor. 

Filing this document with the bankruptcy court ensures that a creditor will share in any subsequent distribution of the debtor's assets.  It also makes it more likely that the creditor will receive notice of important events and deadlines in the bankruptcy. 

            3.  Read and Analyze the Initial Basic Documents.  At the time the bankruptcy is filed, or shortly thereafter, the debtor is required to file its "Statement of Financial Affairs" and "Schedules of Assets and Liabilities".  These documents list the names of creditors and amounts owed to each.  They also provide insight into the recent history and current state of the debtor's financial affairs and can be useful in determining the prospects and potential amount of any repayment of the debt owed.    

            4.  Attend the "First Meeting of Creditors".  Within the first month or so after the bankruptcy has been filed, a "first meeting of creditors" will be held.  Creditors who have been listed by the debtor will receive written notice of the time and place of this meeting; others can check with the bankruptcy court or the office of the United States Trustee for the district.  Attendance at this meeting is not mandatory for creditors.  However, the debtor is required to appear and answer questions under oath by the United States Trustee and any creditor in attendance about events causing the bankruptcy, prospects for repayment and other matters related to the bankruptcy.  You do not have to have a lawyer to participate and ask questions.   Thus, a creditor who fails to attend loses a valuable opportunity to learn about the debtor's financial situation and intentions.

            5.  Don't Expect Prompt Payment of Past Debt.  What happens next in the bankruptcy depends upon what type it is and the number and type of creditors affected by the filing. 

  • In Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings, a trustee in bankruptcy (not the United States Trustee) will evaluate and dispose of the debtor's unencumbered assets, if any; after analyzing the claims made by creditors, the Chapter 7 trustee will then distribute those assets pro rata among eligible creditors who have filed a proof of claim. 

  •  In a Chapter 13 "wage earner" proceeding, designed for individuals with ongoing income, a portion of the debtor's "regular income" over a period of generally three years, though sometimes longer, will be paid to a Chapter 13 Trustee to repay creditors in accordance with the terms of a "plan" approved by the bankruptcy court.

  • In Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings, the debtor remains in control of its financial affairs and operation of its business while it attempts to develop and negotiate a "plan of reorganization" which provides for the treatment of creditor's claims; this treatment frequently involves large discounts of the amounts owed.  Chapter 11 proceedings are often complex and take months, or even years, to reach a conclusion.  The largest creditors in these cases may be invited by the United States Trustee to serve on an Unsecured Creditors Committee which acts as a fiduciary on behalf of the general creditor body with respect to evaluation of the "plan of reorganization" and other events during the course of the bankruptcy. 

            6.  Decide How to Participate.  A creditor's appropriate level of participation will naturally depend upon the nature and amount of the indebtedness, as well as upon the perceived prospects for repayment.  Creditors holding collateral will generally have the most leverage and the highest level of interest in the case; they may want to seek a lifting of the automatic stay so they can pursue their state court remedies and will undoubtedly have a number of other concerns raised by the bankruptcy.  Landlords and lessors are also afforded significant rights under federal bankruptcy law.  Trade creditors and other owed relatively small amounts may often find it cost effective to restrict their involvement to filing a proof of claim.

Many creditors view the "fresh start" philosophy of the federal bankruptcy laws as just another dodge for delinquent debtors.  However, there are also many provisions designed to protect creditors and assure an equitable distribution of the debtor's assets among all creditors.  A basic understanding of the fundamental aspects of bankruptcy can help avoid inadvertent pitfalls while maximizing the possibilities of at least some recovery of a bad debt.