Introduction

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled recently on the validity of “gift plans” – plans of reorganization under which a senior creditor “gifts” assets to a junior creditor or equity holder.1 In In re Journal Register Co.,2 Bankruptcy Judge Alan L. Gropper approved a plan in which secured lenders gifted a portion of their recovery to certain trade creditors, and detailed some of the important limitations on gift plans.

Evolution of the Gift Plan Doctrine

Earlier this year, Courts from the Bankruptcy Courts for the Southern District of New York to the United States Supreme Court issued a number of rulings approving the asset sales by Chrysler and General Motors. Although popular and industry media have been replete with stories regarding the facts of these cases, this article provides an in-depth analysis of the Courts’ rulings on several key issues of interest to debtors and creditors in future bankruptcies.

Summary of Key Rulings

On Thursday, August 6, 2009, the United States Senate confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. As a former Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor’s jurisprudence includes a number of decisions involving noteworthy bankruptcy cases. This article provides a brief survey of these decisions.

As is now well known, General Motors, Inc. and Chrysler LLC financially restructured themselves with the help of the United States Treasury. These restructurings occurred very quickly – Chrysler and GM each filed for bankruptcy and sold substantially all of their automobile-producing assets to newly created companies2 within approximately forty days. Each company used the bankruptcy process to massively deleverage and free itself from personal injury liability claims.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey,2 establishing an important precedent concerning the ability of bankruptcy courts to release claims against third party non-debtors in chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In the June 2009 issue of Cadwalader’s Restructuring Review newsletter, we introduced this case and considered the potential implications of a ruling on this important but unsettled topic.

Introduction

On March 30, 2009, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey,1 a case that addresses the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts to authorize third-party releases in the context of a debtor’s plan of reorganization.

On March 18, 2019, Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision enforcing a mortgage lender’s claim for a prepayment premium (a/k/a make-whole or yield maintenance premium) notwithstanding the lender’s prepetition acceleration of the loan due to the debtor’s default.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has ruled that a creditor cannot effect a “triangular” setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, despite pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff. In re SemCrude, L.P., Case No. 08-11525 (BLS), 2009 WL 68873 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 9, 2009). The Court relied principally on the plain language of section 553(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which limits setoff to mutual obligations between a debtor and a single nondebtor.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its ruling in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp. that provided much needed clarity to creditors and issuers involved in out-of-court restructurings affecting noteholders. The issue for the court was whether Education Management Corp. (“EDMC”) violated the Trust Indenture Act (the “TIA”) when it implemented a restructuring that impaired the rights of one of its unsecured noteholders, Marblegate Asset Management, LLC (the “Noteholder”).

In Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Moran Towing Corp. (In re Bethlehem Steel Corp.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that preferential transfer claims were not arbitrable. The Court reasoned that because the avoidance powers did not belong to the debtor, but rather were creditor claims that could only be brought by a trustee or debtor-in-possession, they were not subject to the arbitration clauses in contracts to which the creditors were not parties.

The Dispute and the Arbitration Clauses