Two decisions (one only weeks ago) have held that the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 encompasses “informal committees” of bondholders and that such committees must comply with the extensive disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.1 In a recent decision, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court came out the other way, ruling that such a committee was not a “committee representing more than one creditor” and, consequently, is not subject to Rule 2019.2 In so doing, Judge Sontchi considered but declined to follow the two decisions addressing the same issue:

Elaborating on its Resorts decision of ten years ago concerning payments to shareholders in a public leveraged buyout,1 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled in In re Plassein Int’l, Corp.2 that the “settlement payment” exemption of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code also insulates selling shareholders in a private LBO from fraudulent transfer liability.

Hedge funds and other investors in debt or equity securities often form unofficial “ad hoc” committees through which they actively participate in chapter 11 cases. Recent decisions affirm that such ad hoc committees must comply with the disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 – including the nature and amounts of claims or interests held by members and other details. What about a “group” that says it’s a lot less than an ad hoc committee and therefore, outside the Rule?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on Nov. 5, 2009, that a creditor was entitled to its post-bankruptcy legal fees incurred on a pre-bankruptcy indemnity agreement. Ogle v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., __F.3d __, No. 09-0691-bk, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24329 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2009). Affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit explained that the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “interposes no bar . . . to recovery.” Id. at *8-9 (citing Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S.

On Nov. 10, 2009, a Pennsylvania district court held that secured creditors do not have an absolute right to credit bid1 their debt under the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) in an asset sale conducted pursuant to a “cramdown” plan of reorganization that proposes to provide the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Civil Action 09-00178 at 57 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2009). This decision is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Facts

A Florida bankruptcy court, on Oct. 13, 2009, issued a 182-page decision after a 13-day trial, among other things, avoiding on fraudulent transfer grounds (a) secured subsidiary guarantees of $500 million and (b) $420 million pre-bankruptcy payments. In re Tousa, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-10928; Adv. P. 08-1435 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2009). The decision is on appeal to the district court.  

Relevance  

On August 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its ruling on whether Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) (and its parent Grupo Mexico) had caused ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to fraudulently transfer stock of Southern Peru Copper Company (“SPCC”) from ASARCO to AMC. The Court determined that AMC was liable for (1) intentional fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law; and (3) civil conspiracy under Arizona law. See ASARCO LLC v.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on May 5, 2009, that a group of secured lenders were fully secured and “entitled to a full recovery” from the debtor despite the bankruptcy court’s improper valuation of the collateral (improved airport terminal space) securing the lenders’ underlying $60 million loan. In re United Airlines, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9648 (7th Cir. 5/5/09) (Easterbrook, Ch. J.). The lower courts had valued the lenders’ collateral at $35 million, leaving them with a $25 million unsecured claim.

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed the collateral agent for senior lenders to credit bid for the debtors’ assets even though all of the senior lenders had not authorized the bid. One of the senior lenders had objected to the group’s acquisition of the debtors’ assets by the credit bid. In re GWLS Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 453110 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 23, 2009) (Walsh, J.).

On April 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court and concluded that special ERISA “termination premiums” due PBGC are not contingent prepetition claims subject to discharge in a chapter 11 reorganization. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Oneida, Ltd., 2009 WL 929528 (2d Cir. April 8, 2009), rev’g Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2008).