This blog publishes articles and updates focused on bankruptcy law, restructuring matters, creditor and debtor considerations, court decisions, and procedural developments that affect businesses and individuals navigating financial distress.

Content includes practical analysis of case outcomes, regulatory changes, and emerging trends, as well as perspectives from legal practitioners on how bankruptcy and insolvency issues are addressed in real-world scenarios.

July 2007

Showing: 1 - 5 of 5 Articles
Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

The “Ride Through” Doctrine Rides Again: Ninth Circuit BAP Lets A License Agreement Ride Through Chapter 11

In a June 18, 2007 decision in In re J.Z. L.L.C. (available here), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit faced an interesting question: Did the so-called "ride through" doctrine from the old Bankruptcy Act of 1898 survive enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978? The BAP’s introduction to the decision sums up its answer:

We confront the puzzle of the status of an executory contract that was neither assumed nor rejected during a chapter 11 case in which there was a confirmed plan that did not involve transfers of property of the estate or creation of new entities. We conclude that the “ride through” doctrine developed under the former Bankruptcy Act retains vitality in chapter 11 cases when the debtor continues operating and does not change form.

After a chapter 11 case was closed, the reorganized debtor sued in state court to enforce a license that it had granted prepetition regarding the use of its manufacturing technology. The state court declined to act without a bankruptcy court ruling that the license, which had been neither assumed nor rejected during the chapter 11 case, remained in effect. The bankruptcy court ruled that the license contract survives under the “ride through” doctrine, that the debtor has standing to enforce the contract because all property of the estate vested in the debtor on confirmation, and that the reorganized debtor should not be judicially estopped. We AFFIRM.

Executory Contracts And Bankruptcy. I have previously discussed the importance of executory contracts in bankruptcy, and specifically how licenses of intellectual property are treated. Both of those posts were premised on the bankruptcy court being asked to decide whether an intellectual property license could be assumed, assumed and assigned, or rejected during the bankruptcy. This case, however, presented a very different situation in which the Chapter 11 debtor did not take any action during the Chapter 11 case to assume or reject the executory contract (here a license agreement permitting the non-debtor party to manufacture, promote, and sell a horizontal grinder on an exclusive basis for five years). In addition, although aware of the bankruptcy case, the non-debtor party to the contract also did not seek to force a decision on assumption or rejection pursuant to Section 365(d)(2).

The BAP’s Reasoning. The BAP’s 28-page decision carefully analyzes the issues raised in the case and makes a number of interesting conclusions.

  • First, not only did the debtor neither assume nor reject the license agreement, it also failed to list it on its bankruptcy schedules (specifically Schedule G). Nevertheless, the BAP held that the non-debtor licensee’s failure to disclose it to the Bankruptcy Court or creditors left it "in the grandstand and not on the playing field" on its argument that the debtor should lose the right to enforce the agreement.
  • Second, even though the license agreement was unscheduled, once the debtor’s Chapter 11 plan was confirmed, all property of the estate — including this unscheduled asset — revested in the reorganized debtor under Section 1141(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
  • Third, while judicial estoppel can sometimes apply to limit the debtor’s ability to sue on an unscheduled asset,  the BAP decided against applying judicial estoppel here, noting that when creditors could be harmed by such limits one "should not become so angry at a debtor that a creditor is taken out and shot." The BAP did acknowledge that the state court hearing the debtor’s lawsuit against the licensee could reach a different conclusion.
  • Fourth, under the language and structure of the Bankruptcy Code, an "executory contract that is not assumed in a chapter 11 case is not ‘deemed rejected.’ As a matter of straightforward statutory construction, it follows that some other alternative, i.e., ‘ride through,’ must be available."
  • Fifth, the "ride through" or "pass through" doctrine was well established under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and nothing in the Bankruptcy Code of 1978 requires a conclusion that Congress intended to disturb that existing doctrine. In addition, the lack of clarity over which contracts are executory and which are non-executory (and thus not subject to assumption or rejection) bolsters the view that a "ride through" alternative exists for contracts.

For more background on the Bankruptcy Court’s decision below (available here), affirmed by the BAP, be sure to read Warren Agin’s December 2006 post on his Tech Bankruptcy Blog, which gives his always insightful perspective on these IP and bankruptcy issues. 

Significance Of A BAP Decision. It’s worth noting that unlike a U.S. Court of Appeals, the BAP is made up of bankruptcy judges only, not federal circuit judges. Given a BAP’s place in the judicial system’s hierarchy, its decisions are not given the same precedential weigh as U.S. Court of Appeals decisions. This means that it’s possible that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could reach a different, and overruling, conclusion. However, the BAP’s decision in this case is well-reasoned and three other circuits (the First, Second, and Fifth) have also ruled that the ride through doctrine still applies today. This makes the BAP’s decision of special interest.

A Strategic Use Of The "Ride Through" Doctrine? As discussed in an earlier post on assumption of IP licenses, in several circuits a debtor cannot even assume many in-licenses of intellectual property without the licensor’s consent.

  • In those circuits, a debtor may consider whether it could retain licenses simply by choosing to have them "ride through" the Chapter 11 case, neither moving to assume the license nor (the debtor hopes) having the licensors move to compel rejection. This scenario makes the old "ride through" doctrine of particular interest, especially if the debtor licensee has not defaulted under the agreement and is seeking only to keep the license agreement after reorganizing in Chapter 11.
  • While it’s true that the occasional executory contract may slip through without a formal decision to assume or reject, it’s the prospect of a debtor being able to use the doctrine as alternative way of preserving valuable intellectual property licenses that has bankruptcy lawyers giving the "ride through" doctrine a closer look.

Stay tuned, but the BAP’s decision in In re JZ L.L.C. may encourage more such efforts in the future.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Florida Bankruptcy Court Considers The Supreme Court’s Travelers Decision And Refuses To Allow Post-Petition Attorney’s Fees To An Unsecured Creditor

In March 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the so-called Fobian rule in the Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. decision. (Click here for a copy of the decision.) That rule, named for the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a case called In re Fobian, 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1991), had barred unsecured creditors from recovering as part of their unsecured claim attorney’s fees incurred post-petition litigating bankruptcy issues. 

The Open Question. As discussed in an earlier post, although the Supreme Court dispatched the Fobian rule, in Travelers it did not decide whether an unsecured creditor could actually recover its attorney’s fees. Among other issues, it left for another day the issue of whether Section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which expressly allows attorney’s fees to oversecured creditors, precludes recovery of post-petition attorney’s fees as part of an unsecured claim.

A New Decision From Florida. Jordan Bublick has an interesting post on his Miami Florida Bankruptcy Law blog about a July 6, 2007 decision in the In re Electric Machinery Enterprises, Inc. Chapter 11 case. In the decision, the court held that an unsecured creditor is not permitted to add post-petition attorney’s fees and costs to its unsecured claim. A copy of the decision, by Judge Michael G. Williamson of the the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, is available here. As Jordan points out, the Florida bankruptcy court held that the pre-Travelers majority rule denying unsecured creditors post-petition attorney’s fees was still good law. Among the reasons the court cited:

  • Section 506(b)’s language permits only oversecured creditors to receive interest and fees, and this effectively excludes recovery by unsecured creditors.
  • The reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision in United Savings Ass’n v. Timbers, 484 U.S. 365 (1988), that post-petition interest can only be paid to secured creditors with the benefit of an equity cushion, applies to attorney’s fees as well.
  • Section 502(b) requires the amount of a claim to be determined "as of the date of the filing of the petition," before post-petition fees have accrued.
  • Allowing fees to contract creditors would be inequitable because tort and many trade creditors, who lack the ability to recover attorney’s fees, would have their relative recovery diminished.

Judge Williamson called out another reason for his decision:

Furthermore, the Court is particularly mindful of the practical impact a contrary ruling would have on the administration of a bankruptcy case. There would be no finality to the claims process as bankruptcy courts would constantly have to revisit the issue of the amount of claims to include ever-accruing attorneys’ fees. The ‘cash registers’ would ring on a daily basis, as attorneys for unsecured creditors that were active in the case would continually be filing new claims or seeking to reconsider previously allowed claims in order to add post-petition attorneys’ fees and costs. Essentially, there could be no finality to the claims resolution process if the ever-accruing fees and costs attendant to the representation of unsecured creditors were allowed as part of an unsecured claim.

An Earlier California Bankruptcy Court Decision. Interestingly, the Florida bankruptcy court did not cite to the In re Qmect, Inc. decision, issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California in May 2007 and discussed in this earlier post. In that decision, the California bankruptcy court took the opposite view. It held that an unsecured creditor could recover, as part of its unsecured claim, post-petition attorney’s fees if its contract with the debtor provided for recovery of such fees. Adopting a different view of the bankruptcy policies at issue, that court held:

The strongest rationale for implying a prohibition on the inclusion of post-petition attorneys’ fees in a unsecured creditor’s pre-petition claim is that, unless the debtor is solvent, the unsecured creditor’s augmented claim will diminish the dividend to other unsecured creditors. However, a similar effect flows from allowing secured creditors to include their post-petition attorneys’ fees in their secured claims. While equality of distribution is one of the basic tenets of bankruptcy law, another important policy in bankruptcy is the preservation of nonbankruptcy legal rights except to the extent necessary to facilitate the purpose of the bankruptcy proceeding. Absent a clear provision of the Bankruptcy Code modifying a creditor’s nonbankruptcy legal rights, the Court concludes that those rights should be deemed to be left intact.

More Decisions To Follow. Bankruptcy courts are now beginning to address whether unsecured creditors can recover post-petition attorney’s fees in the wake of the Travelers decision. These two early decisions have reached completely different conclusions. More decisions will undoubtedly follow as creditors with attorney’s fees provisions in their contracts seek to include post-petition fees in their unsecured claims. With the issue far from settled, be sure to stay tuned.

The Financially Troubled Company

An Entrepreneur’s Take On Managing Layoffs

Almost every financially troubled company will face a layoff at some point. Knowing how to implement one with sensitivity to all employees (including those not part of the layoff) and with the needs of the business squarely in mind can best preserve the ability for future success.

Will Herman, an entrepreneur and former CEO of several successful companies, has a very interesting post on his 2-Speed blog entitled "How To Manage A Layoff."  In it, Will offers up nine key guidelines for effectively managing a layoff. Among his well-put suggestions:

  • Do it quickly — Nothing will drain the life out of an organization faster than mass fear of job loss.
  • Do it once — Not completing a layoff in one pass will kill the productivity of those who remain.  
  • Plan ahead — Decide how you’re going to handle the termination details – have any severance, benefits, insurance, outplacement service offerings or reference policy well documented ahead of time (can you afford any of these?). 
  • Communicate — Make it clear to everyone (those being laid off and those remaining) why it happened and what has been done or is being done to make sure it doesn’t t happen again.  Emphasize that the layoff as just witnessed is OVER and that no one else will be laid off because of the current situation (new situations may, of course, come up). 

Getting a layoff right can be a make-or-break event in a successful turnaround. Will’s range of business experience makes his post essential reading for anyone interested in this important, if unpleasant, topic.

Recent Developments

Thanks For A Blogging Year

Tuesday, July 24, 2007, marks this blog’s first year anniversary. While I don’t usually include personal posts on the blog, I did want to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued interest in the blog. It’s been a privilege to share updates on business bankruptcy and related issues with you. I hope you’ve found the posts useful and informative and feel free to browse through the blog’s archives to view any you may have missed.

Special thanks go to my colleagues at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP for their assistance in launching and supporting the blog, to Kevin O’Keefe and LexBlog for their design and technical help, to BKINFORMATION.COM‘s Daily Bankruptcy News for including links to many of the blog’s posts in their always interesting emails, and to the American Bankruptcy Institute for presenting the blog’s posts in its Bankruptcy Blog Exchange.

In addition, I greatly appreciate the comments and encouragement I have received from fellow bloggers such as Brad Feld of Feld Thoughts and, with Jason Mendelson, of AskTheVC Blog, Steve Jakubowski of the Bankruptcy Litigation Blog, Scott Riddle of the Georgia Bankruptcy Law Blog, Chris Laughton of Insolvency Blog, and Francis Pileggi of the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog.

Thanks again for your interest and, as always, I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Signs Of A Turn In The Private Equity Buyout Market?

Last week saw what may prove to be early signs of a turn in the robust market for the debt that finances private equity buyouts. In just a week’s time, The New York Times reported on a possible cooldown in the buyout market, and the Financial Times published a commentary on signs of a possible "bondholder revolt" against issuer-favorable debt terms (including low debt coverage ratios mentioned in an earlier post) that have prevailed for the past several years. In addition, the DealBook Blog‘s post entitled "Buyout Boom Could Slow As Investors Push Back" discussed how several buyout debt offerings were recently curtailed or modified, a first in this previously strong debt market.

Then, in a separate but interesting move, the former co-head of investment banking at UBS, Jeff McDermott, left last week to start a new private equity firm, Stony Lane Partners. Stony Lane’s focus? Buying and turning around distressed businesses. When asked by the Financial News why he’s making the move, McDermott answered:

I think a credit crunch will play out over time, and it will be like a slow rolling wave. It’s won’t be a one-day cataclysmic event. I think there will be double leverage in the system. I think CDOs are buying margin leverage and are buying corporate credits, which are priced like there’s no end to economic growth in the future. Of course, there are economic cycles.

If he’s right, a rise in defaults, restructurings, and Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings may be coming down the road.