This is how Tribune ends: not with a bang, but a whimper. The 12-year litigation saga, rooted in the spectacular failure of the media and sports conglomerate’s 2007 leveraged buyout, reached an end in late February with a curt “cert. denied” from the US Supreme Court.
Morgan Lewis was one of the firms that captained the defense for Tribune’s former shareholders. This post notes some lessons that we learned—and relearned.
Lesson One: Section 546(e)’s ‘New’ Safe Harbor
The US Supreme Court tends to hear a couple of bankruptcy cases per term. Most of these cases deal with interpreting provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. However, every few years or so, the Supreme Court decides a constitutional issue in bankruptcy. Some are agita-inducing (Northern Pipeline, Stern), some less so (Katz). The upcoming case is a little more nuanced, but could have major consequences.
Insight
Consider a lender that extends a term loan in the amount of $1 million to an entity debtor. The loan is guaranteed by the debtor’s owner. If both the debtor and the guarantor become subject to bankruptcy cases, it is settled that the lender has a claim of $1 million (ignoring interest and expenses) in each bankruptcy case. However, the lender cannot recover more than $1 million in total in the two cases combined. (Ivanhoe Building & Loan Ass'n of Newark, NJ v. Orr, 295 U.S. 243 (1935).)
After reporting its lowest annual recovery from False Claim Act (“FCA”) cases in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has reportedly bounced back. On February 1, 2021, DOJ released detailed statistics regarding FCA recoveries during FY 2021, during which DOJ reportedly obtained more than $5.6 billion in civil FCA settlements and judgments, of which $5 billion related to matters involving the health care industry.
Not so long ago US Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain of the Southern District of New York had his time in the barrel—pilloried in the media for approving releases to members of the Sackler family as part of a bankruptcy plan that would settle global opioid-related claims against Purdue Pharma, a bankruptcy debtor, and affiliated family members and other persons who were not bankruptcy debtors.
Chapter 11 plans are a form of stakeholder democracy. Elaborate rules govern voting and its consequences, and, in Section 1125(b), how acceptances—and rejections—may be solicited. Well, sort of.
Chapter 11 plans of reorganization provide creditors with recoveries (cash or new securities) in exchange for a release and discharge of all claims against the debtor. Many Chapter 11 plans go a step further to release claims against related entities and persons who are not debtors in the case. Members of Congress have recently proposed legislation that could prohibit such nonconsensual third-party releases.
After a sluggish year in 2020 for mergers and acquisitions among hospitals and health systems, 2021 has shown renewed vigor and is poised for considerable transactional activity.
The ability to assume or reject executory contracts is one of the primary tools used by debtors in a Chapter 11 reorganization. Where a debtor has a contract with a third party that is “executory”—meaning that ongoing performance obligations remain for both the debtor and the contract counterparty on the date of the bankruptcy filing—the debtor can choose to either assume or reject the contract under 11 USC § 365.
Subordination agreements are generally enforced in accordance with applicable non-bankruptcy law in bankruptcy cases. The decision in In re Fencepost Productions, Inc., No. 19-41542, 2021 WL 1259691 (Bankr. D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2021) recognizes limits to this rule. While the subject subordination agreements were generally enforceable, the assignment of Chapter 11 voting rights in such agreements was not.