2015 Northeast Bankruptcy Conference

When companies file Chapter 11, they communicate on a number of fronts and through a number of means. Pleadings are fashioned to convey a particular message to the court, creditors and anybody else who might read them. Public companies have certain mandatory disclosures in the form of 8Ks. More importantly, and more interestingly, communications strategies are undertaken by debtors to inform but reassure their customers, vendors and the public. This program will be led by experts in the field of communications in the face of a bankruptcy. Issues include securities law compliance prepetition, avoiding improper plan solicitation, the role of communications professionals in messaging even in filed documents and in case proceedings, such as the first day declaration and at the 341 meeting and, post-petition when court approval is necessary or advisable.

Recent cases have evidenced one form of jurisdictional migration and two forms of venue migration. As to the jurisdictional migration, international companies with virtually no U.S. connection seek to, and generally succeed at, establishing a sufficient U.S. presence to file a Chapter 11 in the United States because, if there are reorganization proceedings in the countries that are their COMIs, they are perceived as inadequate (Marco Polo, Omega, GenMar). What has worked for non-U.S. companies seeking to invoke U.S. Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction, and what is the legal authority? Venue migration is nothing new--debtors file in their place of incorporation rather than the venue in which their headquarters or primary operations are. What are the factors that go into that decision? Finally, sometimes debtors are forced to migrate back. What factors have resulted in a change of venue? (Houghton Mifflin and Patriot Coal).

This program will focus on the legal and business challenges that faced counsel to a debtor, secured lenders and franchisor in a hotly litigated, modest-sized Chapter 11 in Massachusetts involving a two-tiered ownership of six Planet Fitness franchisees. Filed in 2010 and ending with a confirmed plan in 2012, the case involved shifting allegiances, successive plans, alternative considerations of an asset sale vs a change in equity ownership depending on litigation with the franchisor, and a plethora of challenging issues, including (i) the contested settlement of litigation challenges to one secured creditor, (ii) the potential cram-down of a second secured creditor, (iii) the treatment of leases intended as security, (iv) disputed feasibility, (v) the ability to assume (and assign) the franchise agreements, (vi) whether the franchisor’s right of first refusal was enforceable, (vii) whether de-branding is a real alternative to a continuation of the franchise, (viii) whether the franchisor’s rights were waived during the case, and (ix) claims estimation. See In re Chicago Investments, LLC, 470 B.R. 32 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012).

Unlike most 363 sale programs, this program will not involve the aspects of the sale that are the focus of court proceedings, but will take an in-depth look at the transaction documents that get the deal done. The primary document discussed with be the APA-what does that document need to accomplish, what provisions should be included, how do APAs used in 363 sales differ from other APAs, what to do about reps and warranties and why and, what are the points of negotiation? Experienced deal-side practitioners will identify the elements of an asset purchase agreement that are important, and the respective views of the buyer and the seller as to those provisions.

This single plenary session will feature a policy-oriented panel discussing the reasons for municipal insolvency nationally, with a particular focus on the New England Region. The panel of highly-experienced government officials, municipal receivers and thought leaders will review and debate the challenges faced by state and local leaders in their efforts to address the financial stress facing many of our cities and towns. Among the issues to be addressed are: the pressures of labor contracts, legacy benefits, and pension and retirement plans on municipal budgets; creditor and bondholder relations; sections of the code that impact these issues; and trends arising from the most recent cases. The panel may also touch on needed Chapter 9 reform. Lawyers, lenders, insolvency specialists, as well as those interested in the future of our cities and towns, will be interested in this program.

Do “Out-of-the-Money” Creditors Have Standing? There are many chapter 11’s filed primarily to sell the collateral for undersecured creditors—meaning that there isn’t any value generated for unsecured creditors or equity. This panel will explore the various issues that result such as basic standing and the appropriateness of forming and maintaining a creditors committee and an equity committee. The panel will also discuss the various arguments put forth to justify a carveout or “gift” for unsecured creditors and the often used “pay-to-play” rule occasionally asserted by out-of-the-money creditor groups. It will also examine ways to identify unencumbered assets early in the case and the possible benefits of keeping them free from post-petition liens granted to DIP Lenders. Lastly, the panel will discuss ways to maximize the Chapter 5 claims and the use of liquidating assets.

Sharing a Piece of the Pie: Gift Plans, Structured Dismissals and Carve-Outs Often bankruptcy is the best way for under-secured creditors to optimize collateral recoveries. But the price for bankruptcy relief is that secured creditors must share their recoveries with out-of-the money constituencies. This panel will explore such sharing arrangements in a variety of contexts–carve outs, gift plans and structured dismissals.

Litigating the Cramdown Rate “Cram down” requires full payment of secured classes. This, in turn, requires a present value analysis of the dividends secured creditors will receive under the plan. This panel will review what debtors and secured creditors need to show to establish a cramdown rate and the nuts-and-bolts evidentiary issues joined by cramdown litigation.

Stern v. Marshall: One Year Later In June 2011, the Supreme Court issued its watershed decision in Stern v. Marshall, restricting the scope of bankruptcy court jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Stern has confounded judges, litigants and commentators alike. Although characterized by the Supreme Court as a “narrow” decision, Stern is proving to have widespread implications, the full extent of which remain to be seen as cases work their way through the bankruptcy, district and appellate courts. This panel will survey the contexts in which Stern has posed issues, the decisions construing and applying Stern in the year since it was decided, and the possible legislative responses to the decision.