Introduction

In a recent decision¹, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found the standard for sealing under § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code was not met and declined to seal a settlement agreement, despite requests from the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") and the counterparties to the settlement agreement to do so. Confidentiality was an essential condition of the settlement. In addition, the United States trustee supported the motion to seal, arguing that the standard for sealing had been met.

The Ninth Circuit held on April 30, 2013 that a bankruptcy court “has the authority to determine whether a transaction creates a debt or an equity interest for purposes of [Bankruptcy Code] § 548, and that a transaction creates a debt if it creates a ‘right to payment’ under state law.” In re Fitness Holdings International, Inc., 2013 WL 1800000, *1 (9th Cir. April 30, 2013). The court agreed with five other circuits, but explicitly followed the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit’s recent In re Lothian Oil, Inc. decision. 650 F.3d 539, 543-44 (5th Cir.

An important decision by Judge Kevin Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently focused the distressed debt market (and financial creditors in general) on the proper legal characterization of a common financing provision — the “make-whole premium.”¹ Judge Carey allowed a lender’s claim in bankruptcy for the full amount of a large make-whole premium, after denying a motion by the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee to disallow the claim.

 WHY DOES THIS DECISION MATTER?

I. Introduction

On April 22, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in In re School Specialty upheld the enforceability of a make-whole premium triggered by the pre-petition acceleration of a secured term loan.1 The decision re-affirms that bankruptcy courts will respect properly drafted make-whole premiums that pass muster under applicable state law.

In another recent private letter ruling,¹⁹ the IRS ruled that an ownership change pursuant to a bankruptcy reorganization plan qualified for an exception to the general rule limiting net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards under Section 382(a).

In an important decision for private equity sponsors and other insiders who advance loans to their businesses, on April 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Fitness Holdings International confirmed that bankruptcy courts may recharacterize debt as equity, but held that recharacterization is determined by state law. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit joins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in deferring to state law on this issue and explicitly rejects the various federal law based tests that have been adopted by a majority of U.S.

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

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