Unsecured Trade Creditors in Bankruptcy Cases May Have Received Early Holiday Gift
At the end of the summer, Delaware U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews issued an opinion in the case of Hargreaves v. Nuverra Environmental Solutions, which can have a profound benefit to unsecured trade creditors in bankruptcy cases where there is substantial leveraged secured debt and the value of the borrower's assets is less than the amount of the secured debt.
October 18, 2018 at 09:29 AM
5 minute read
At the end of the summer, Delaware U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews issued an opinion in the case of Hargreaves v. Nuverra Environmental Solutions, which can have a profound benefit to unsecured trade creditors in bankruptcy cases where there is substantial leveraged secured debt and the value of the borrower's assets is less than the amount of the secured debt. Heretofore, these creditors could expect no distributions from the bankruptcy case. Andrews' opinion is one of the first opinions to uphold what is known as horizontal gifting in a Chapter 11 plan. Exploring this concept and opportunity for unsecured trade creditors is important in assessing that group's rights and remedies in a bankruptcy case.
Under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, a Chapter 11 reorganization plan must comply with what is known as the absolute priority rule. Simply stated, the rule prohibits a distribution to a lower in status class of creditors or equity holders if a higher in status class has not either been paid in full or consents to the distribution to the more junior class. If a Chapter 11 plan as proposed by a bankruptcy debtor violates the absolute priority rule, if there is an objection by a creditor or group of creditors that is more senior in priority, the bankruptcy judge cannot confirm the plan.
In order to confirm a Chapter 11 plan, the provisions of Section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the plan proponent must demonstrate among other things that there is no violation of the absolute priority rule, that the plan does not unfairly discriminate against one or more classes of creditors and that at least one class of impaired creditors has accepted the plan. In the all too often current situation where there is secured, and most often overly leveraged debt, where the value of the assets is insufficient to satisfy the claims of secured creditors, since there will be and can be no distribution to junior unsecured or trade creditors, the absolute priority rule prohibits satisfying some of these junior creditors to gain their vote for acceptance of the plan and continued business dealings with the reorganized debtor.
In the Nuverra case, the Chapter 11 plan provided that the secured creditor would swap its secured debt for a 100 percent equity interest in the reorganized entity, leaving no funds to be distributed to any junior class of creditors. In order to circumvent the absolute priority rule and to obtain an affirmative vote for a plan by a junior impaired class of creditors, the senior secured creditor agreed to “gift” 100 percent payment to trade creditors and 6.5 percent to certain unsecured bondholders. Thus, bondholders, junior secured creditors and other groups of unsecured creditors would receive little or nothing under the plan, while trade creditors would be paid in full. This concept is known as horizontal gifting which in essence permits the secured creditor to make a gift of a distribution to trade creditors and certain junior classes upon creditors of its choice from the secured creditor's funds outside of the Chapter 11 plan.
Andrews applied what is known as the so-called Markell test to determine if the plan unfairly discriminated against the rights of the objecting bondholders. The test raises a rebuttable presumption of unfair discrimination if a similar class receives a materially lower percentage recovery under the Chapter 11 plan. Judge Andrews, in his opinion, stated that prior opinions and the Markell test do not say anything about gifting, which is solely within the purview of the senior secured creditor since it is using its own funds to make the “gift” distribution to unsecured creditors. Although there is a rebuttable presumption of unfair discrimination, Andrews found that horizontal gifting in the Chapter 11 plan does not, per se, constitute a violation of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to confirmations of Chapter 11 plans. Andrews also found that the objecting bondholders were not harmed by the larger recovery of the trade creditors since the bondholders received more than they would otherwise obtain in a liquidation or if there was no horizontal gifting at all.
While this may all seem somewhat complicated, in essence, unsecured trade creditors now have a valuable negotiating tool in Chapter 11 proceedings where secured creditors need to obtain the consent of an impaired class of creditors in order to confirm a Chapter 11 plan. Such trade creditors can now use significant negotiating strength to mandate horizontal gifting by the senior secured creditor in order meet the statutory requirements in order to obtain confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan with an equity for debt swap.
Attorneys, financial professionals and creditors can now utilize a new arrow in their quiver in order to seek for partial payment in bankruptcy where none was previously available.
Charles Tatelbaum is a director at Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250