Exculpation clauses limiting the liability of certain entities for actions taken in connection with a bankruptcy case are a common feature of chapter 11 plans. However, courts disagree over the permitted scope of such clauses. They also disagree as to whether an order confirming a chapter 11 plan that includes exculpation and third-party release provisions is insulated from appellate review under the doctrine of "equitable mootness."

Question: Can a creditor prevent its debtor from filing bankruptcy by pre-petition contract terms?

Answer: No . . . according to In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 in the Northern Texas Bankruptcy Court (03/07/2023, opinion at Doc. 77).

Facts

The Bottom Line

One feature commonly seen in commercial lending transactions is a waiver of the borrower’s authority to file for bankruptcy without the consent of the lender. While such “blocking” provisions are generally upheld where the equity interest holders are the parties with such rights, they are generally unenforceable as a matter of public policy when such protection is given to a creditor with no meaningful ownership interest in the corporate debtor.

Lenders often attempt to limit what a borrower can do outside the ordinary course of business by negotiating contractual protections. Some of these provisions are designed to make the borrowers bankruptcy remote by, for example, requiring the borrower’s Board to include an independent director whose consent is required for a bankruptcy filing. Others, as was the case we discuss here, however, go further by including contractual rights that limit a borrower’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent.

The recent decision by the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re LTL Management, LLC did not address or negate the viability of divisive mergers of entities under the Texas Business Organizations Code (the “TBOC”). Various news articles concerning the decision have reported that the court disapproved of the so-called “Texas Two-Step” transactions undertaken by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) in the face of its mounting talc tort litigation.

In a decision that may provide much-needed boundaries around the permissibility of debtors created from “out-of-the-box” prepetition corporate transactions, on January 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous opinion dismissing Johnson & Johnson subsidiary LTL Management, LLC’s (“LTL”) chapter 11 case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey as not being filed in good faith.¹

In a January 5, 2023 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the panel held the Just Energy bankruptcy court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the debtor’s suit to recover Winter Storm Uri payments made to ERCOT. The Fifth Circuit found the underlying issue—i.e., the propriety of ERCOT and PUCT’s pricing—to be precisely the type of controversy that should be decided in the manner carefully prescribed by the Texas legislature, and not be second-guessed by the bankruptcy court.

BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING REVIEW VOL. 21 • NO. 5 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2022 1 IN THIS ISSUE 1 Texas District Court: Bankruptcy Sale Break-Up Fee Satisfied Both Business Judgment Test and Administrative Expense Standard 2 Lawyer Spotlight: Gregory M.

On September 19, 2022, a panel of three appellate judges for the 3rd Circuit heard oral argument in a closely-watched case, In re LTL Management LLC, Case No. 22-2003.

This is the first of several posts on gathering agreements in bankruptcy, covenants running with the land and rejection claims that arise when a debtor finds gathering agreements financially burdensome. As our readers know, we waited with much anticipation for theSabine ruling and wait with equal anticipation for the ruling on similar issues in QuickSilver.  Being pragmatic business lawyers we decided to blog on what parties to gathering agreements should be doing now in light of the non-binding, advisory Sabine ruling.