Last month’s decision out of the Delaware District Court in Woolery, et al. v.

A lender’s right to recover a make-whole premium as part of its allowed claim in a bankruptcy case has been the subject of several recent court decisions. A Delaware bankruptcy court recently allowed a make-whole premium of $23.7 million on a $67 million term loan^[1] and found that the premium was not “plainly disproportionate” to the creditor’s possible loss. As a result, the make-whole was not an unenforceable penalty under New York law. In re School Specialty, Inc., No. 13-10125, Slip Op. (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 22, 2013).^[2]

Facts

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently upheld a secured lender’s claim for a $23.5 million “makewhole” premium (the “Makewhole Claim”) over the heavily litigated objection raised by the unsecured creditors’ committee in In re School Specialty, Inc., No. 13-10125 (KJC) (Apr. 22, 2013).

On April 22, 2013, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed a lender’s $23.7 million pre-petition make-whole claim, representing approximately 37% of the outstanding principal of the loan, in the Chapter 11 case of School Specialty, Inc. ¹ In a decision that will win cheers from the lending community, the court enforced the clear terms of the loan agreement over the objection of the Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee, holding that the make-whole claim was enforceable under New York law.

BACKGROUND

In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the court adopted a flexible approach to consensual third party releases in a plan of reorganization. In In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 384 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 31, 2013), the court permitted third party releases where creditors failed to opt out of the release provisions of the plan either by not submitting their vote on the plan, or by voting against the plan but failing to check the “opt out” box on the ballot.

Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’ tax because WMI had (as the parent corporation) filed consolidated corporate tax returns on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and therefore could be held jointly and severally liable for the tax due.

In In re: Nortel Networks Inc., No. 1:09-bk-10138 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013), Nortel Networks Inc. reached a settlement with over 3,000 of its retired employees for nearly $67 million. Nortel, a former telecom equipment maker, filed for bankruptcy in 2009. In the subsequent four years, Nortel sold off nearly all of its assets, but had been unable to reach a compromise with its retirees to terminate its benefit plans.

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy many businesses have been negatively impacted financially throughout regions from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.  Hardest hit are businesses located not only along the New Jersey, Staten Island and  Long Island  NY  coasts but in areas  that  have never experienced such a devastating disaster.  Areas  such as  Hoboken NJ,lower Manhattan and the NYC  East Side.  Even  businesses  located in inland  communit

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion confirming a chapter 11 plan (i) based on a lock-up agreement between the debtor and its major creditors and (ii) containing third party releases that bound creditors unless they affirmatively "opted out" in a ballot actually returned to the balloting agent.

On January 31, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the debtors’ proposed plan of reorganization in In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC,¹ declining to “designate” or disallow the votes of several substantial creditors that had entered into a plan support or “lockup” agreement with the debtors after the bankruptcy filing. In a written decision,² the Bankruptcy Court provided important guidance concerning the permissibility of post-petition plan support agreements entered into before the court approves a disclosure statement.