Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements
The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context. In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”
On Monday, March 10, 2014, the companies that own and operate the Sbarro pizza chain, Sbarro LLC and 33 affiliates, filed for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code. The Sbarro companies operate 217 restaurants in the U.S. and there are 582 franchised restaurants, 176 in the U.S. and 406 at international locations.
When a franchisee files for bankruptcy, a franchisor naturally has concerns over how the process will affect the parties’ relationship. Of particular concern is the possibility that the franchisor will be forced into a relationship with an unacceptable successor as a result of a bankruptcy judge’s decision to authorize assumption and assignment of the franchise agreement over the franchisor’s objection.
On May 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) issued an opinion with significant ramifications for law firms seeking to hire former partners from bankrupt law firms. At issue was whether, under New York partnership law, the law firms that hired former partners of Coudert Brothers LLP (Coudert), a dissolved and bankrupt law partnership, must account for profits that the former Coudert partners earned while completing work on open client matters they took with them from Coudert.
On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirpalani, the court-appointed examiner for Dynegy Holdings LLC (Dynegy), concluded that the debtor's transfer of certain assets to its parent company, Dynegy Inc., prior to its bankruptcy filing may be recoverable as a fraudulent transfer. Kirpalani further determined that Dynegy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty in approving the asset transfer. Dynegy Inc. vigorously disputes the examiner's findings.
On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirpalani, the court-appointed examiner for Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy), concluded that the debtor's transfer of certain assets to its parent company, Dynegy, Inc., prior to its bankruptcy filing may be recoverable as a fraudulent transfer. Kirpalani further determined that Dynegy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty in approving the asset transfer. Dynegy, Inc. vigorously disputes the examiner's findings.
In late 2011, bondholders in the bankruptcy case of power company Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy) moved for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate certain transactions that occurred immediately prior to the filing of Dynegy's bankruptcy petition. The transactions at issue involve the alleged transfer of millions of dollars in assets to Dynegy's parent company (a non-debtor) approximately two months prior to the bankruptcy filing.
In a case illustrating the effective use of a bankruptcy examiner, the examiner appointed by the court in the North General Hospital bankruptcy case has concluded that the hospital made over $3 million in unauthorized post-bankruptcy filing payments to the detriment of unsecured creditors. Prior to its bankruptcy filing, North General Hospital and certain related corporate debtors operated a hospital in the Harlem section of Manhattan.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. The right examiner, with a clearly defined mission, will have a major influence on the bankruptcy process. The difference between a successful financial restructuring or liquidation-resulting in substantial recoveries for the key constituencies-and a time-consuming (and asset-consuming) meltdown, can depend on the approach of the examiner and the examiner's support team.
United States Supreme Court
Washington, D.C.
November 3, 2009