Latest Articles

Business Bankruptcy Issues

The Terrible Twos? A Look At BAPCPA’s Impact On Business Bankruptcy Cases At Its Second Anniversary

Tomorrow, October 17, 2007, marks the second anniversary of the effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, known as BAPCPA.  BAPCPA was enacted primarily to make sweeping changes to the consumer provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. However, BAPCPA also made significant revisions in the business bankruptcy arena.  When it was passed, bankruptcy lawyers, creditors, and potential debtors had many questions about how these changes would play out as new cases made their way through the system. Two years out, we now have answers to some of those questions.

In this post I’ll look at a few of BAPCPA’s more substantial revisions and how courts have addressed them so far. These include new rules governing real estate leases, reclamation, the "20 day goods" administrative claim, key employee retention plans, cross-border bankruptcy cases, and an important preference defense. As we walk down memory lane, I’ll also point you to earlier posts where you can find more details on these issues.

Commercial Real Estate Leases. Under BAPCPA, if the debtor is the tenant under an unexpired commercial lease, it must either assume or reject the lease within 120 days of the filing of bankruptcy. The court can extend this time period without the landlord’s consent for 90 additional days, making a total of 210 days, but any further extensions require the landlord’s prior written consent. If the lease is not assumed (or assumed and assigned) within this period, the lease automatically will be deemed rejected and the debtor will have to move out. 

  • Before BAPCPA, debtors initially had only 60 days to assume or reject leases but there was no statutory limit on extensions of that period. Cumulative extensions of a year or more, over a landlord’s objection, were not uncommon under the pre-BAPCPA version of the Bankruptcy Code. That is no longer possible under BAPCPA.
  • Below market leases can represent a significant asset, particularly for retailers with many store leases, and BAPCPA has forced these debtors to move very quickly to assume and assign leases or to sell designation rights to make the most of the 210 day maximum period. In a number of cases, this 210 day limit has depressed the value of the debtor’s leases and the recovery for its creditors.
  • For more on real estate leases, you may want to read "Commercial Real Estate Leases: How Are They Treated In Bankruptcy?" previously posted on this blog.

Reclamation. When a debtor becomes insolvent or files bankruptcy, some vendors may be able to take advantage of a special, although limited, right to get back or "reclaim" certain of the goods. This reclamation right is part of both the Uniform Commercial Code and the Bankruptcy Code. BAPCPA made some changes in the reclamation area and post-BAPCPA cases have put some meat on the bones of those changes. A new, 45-day bankruptcy reclamation right was added to Section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, expanding the Uniform Commercial Code’s 10-day rule. Under BAPCPA, the goods must have been sold in the "ordinary course" of the vendor’s business and the debtor must have received the goods while insolvent. The reclamation demand must be in writing and made within 45 days of the receipt of the goods by the customer (now the debtor in bankruptcy).  If the 45-day period expires after the bankruptcy case is filed, the vendor must make the reclamation demand within 20 days after the bankruptcy filing.

Two decisions from earlier this year have helped clarify the impact, and highlight the limitations, of BAPCPA’s reclamation changes.

  • In January 2007, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware refused to issue a temporary restraining order in favor of a reclamation claimant in the Advanced Marketing Services case who sought to prevent the sale of goods it was trying to reclaim. The Court cited the superior rights of the secured creditor, which had a lien on the goods. A discussion of the case and a copy of the Court’s decision is available at this earlier post.
  • Then, in April 2007, Judge Burton R. Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York applied the "prior lien defense" in favor of a secured creditor by valuing all reclamation claims in the Dana Corporation case at zero. You can find a discussion of that case and a copy of the decision at this previous post.

The "20 Day Goods" Administrative Claim. Although the post-BAPCPA decisions have not been favorable to vendors in the reclamation area, recent developments have underscored the value of the new Section 503(b)(9) administrative claim. That new provision, added by BAPCPA, gives vendors an administrative priority claim for "the value of any goods received by the debtor within 20 days before" the date a bankruptcy petition was filed "in which the goods have been sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of such debtor’s business."  For an overview of the new provision, you may find the post entitled "20 Day Goods: New Administrative Claim For Goods Sold Just Before Bankruptcy," of interest.

Key Employee Retention Plans. One of BAPCPA’s most notable changes was the significant restrictions imposed on key employee retention plans, known as KERPs. Prior to BAPCPA, KERPs were a very popular way of making sure that a company could retain its most important officers and employees to guide it through bankruptcy. Citing perceived abuses, however, Congress added language in BAPCPA that requires debtors to satisfy nearly impossible standards before courts would be permitted to approve payment of retention bonuses (or severance payments) as administrative claims to officers and other insiders of a bankrupt company. In short, a debtor would have to show that the individual was essential the the survival of the business and that he or she had a bona fide job offer from another business at the same or greater rate of compensation.

Debtors looking to compensate key officers have moved away from retention plans entirely and instead have turned to incentive plans. 

  • Several courts have approved incentive plans covering insiders but have applied certain factors to judge the reasonableness of the plan, including an assessment of the relationship between the plan and the results to be obtained, the cost of the plan, and whether the plan’s overall scope is fair and reasonable.
  • In May 2007, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court even approved a downward adjustment to an incentive plan’s targets, permitting a bonus to be paid to insiders, when the original plan’s targets turned out to be unrealistic. 
  • For more on this topic, including copies of three significant decisions in the Dana Corporation, Global Home Products, and Nellson Nutraceuticals cases, follow the link to this earlier post on key employee incentive plans.

Chapter 15 On Cross-Border Bankruptcies. BAPCPA added a new chapter to the Bankruptcy Code to adopt an internationally drafted Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.  Chapter 15 is used principally by representatives of, or creditors in, foreign insolvency proceedings to obtain assistance in the United States, by a debtor or others seeking to obtain assistance in a foreign country regarding a bankruptcy case in the United States, or when both a foreign proceeding and a bankruptcy case in the United States are pending with respect to the same debtor. Follow the link in this sentence for a detailed overview of Chapter 15.

  • In a recent case involving two Bear Stearns hedge funds, the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York refused to recognize proceedings pending in the Cayman Islands as either a foreign main or foreign nonmain proceeding, denying those entities Chapter 15 protection in the United States.
  • You can find the details on this case (and a copy of the original and amended decisions) here and here.

Preferences. Before it took effect, one of BAPCPA’s most talked about changes was a revision to the "ordinary course of business" defense to preference claims. BAPCPA dropped the requirement that a preference defendant establish that a transfer was both (i) made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs between the debtor and the defendant and (ii) made according to ordinary business terms.

  • BAPCPA’s main change was to replace the "and" with an "or", meaning that a preference defendant now has to establish only one of the two prongs (instead of both) to prevail on the defense. When it was enacted, many bankruptcy lawyers believed this change would favor preference defendants. 
  • In something of a surprise, however, the first case interpreting the revised statute applied a brand new standard to the "ordinary business terms" provision. Unlike the prior analysis of that prong, the new standard examined the question from the perspective of both the creditor (as had been done pre-BAPCPA) and the debtor (the new BAPCPA twist). As a result, in that decision the preference defendant lost. For more on the decision, in the In re National Gas Distributors, LLC case, check out this post on David Rosendorf’s BAPCPA Blog.
  • There have been surprisingly few cases interpreting this section, so it remains to be seen whether other courts will follow the National Gas Distributors interpretation.

Another Great BAPCPA Resource. In addition to the BAPCPA Blog, which has posts on many decisions from BAPCPA’s first year, don’t miss Steve Jakubowski’s Bankruptcy Litigation Blog, in particular his BAPCPA and BAPCPA Outline topics. Steve has posted on a range of BAPCPA issues, including major consumer decisions and many business bankruptcy decisions.

Acting Like A Two Year Old? As we begin the third year under BAPCPA, the law is beginning to take early steps toward greater clarity in some areas but much remains to be decided. In particular, few appellate decisions have been issued on BAPCPA’s key changes, giving us little guidance on how the Courts of Appeals will interpret the new law.  As always, stay tuned for more developments and feel free to subscribe to the blog by email or by RSS to your feedreader.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

The Bull Rips A Hole In The Matador’s Cape: New Ninth Circuit Decision Limits Reach Of Section 502(b)(6)’s Landlord Cap

A commercial real estate lease often represents the largest single liability of many debtors. For retailers, which typically have scores or even hundreds of store leases, the liability involved is orders of magnitude larger. It’s fair to say that the management of lease obligations can be of enormous consequence to debtors, landlords, and other creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

Rejected Leases And The Capped Claim. As explained in an earlier post on how commercial real estate leases are treated in bankruptcy, one of a debtor’s options in a Chapter 11 case is to reject uneconomic or otherwise burdensome leases, terminating the debtor’s obligation to pay rent and turning the landlord’s claim for termination of the lease into a prepetition claim. Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code goes further and caps the landlord’s prepetition rejection claim at an amount equal to the greater of (1) one year’s rent or (2) fifteen percent of the remaining lease term, up to a maximum of three years’ worth of rent. The starting date for calculating the claim is the earlier of the date when the bankruptcy petition was filed or when the landlord recovered possession of, or the tenant surrendered, the premises. A landlord with six years left on a rejected lease, for example, would have its claim capped at one year’s worth of rent.

What’s Covered By The Cap? This ability to cap a landlord’s claim in bankruptcy can be a major benefit to debtor tenants. Ever since a 1995 decision by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Ninth Circuit in In re McSheridan, 184 B.R. 91 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995), debtors have been successful in many cases in capping a variety of claims by landlords. In McSheridan, the BAP held that the cap applied to all damages for the lessee’s nonperformance of the lease, not just to claims based on future rent. Landlords have challenged that analysis but, at least in the Ninth Circuit, have had little success — until this week.

The Ninth Circuit’s El Toro Decision. In an eight-page opinion (available here) issued on October 1, 2007 in the In re El Toro Materials Company, Inc. Chapter 11 case,, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit took a very different view of the landlord cap under Section 502(b)(6). In the El Toro case, the debtor was a mining company that leased property from the Saddleback Community Church, paying $28,000 per month in rent. After the lease was rejected, Saddleback brought an adversary proceeding against El Toro for $23 million in damages alleging that El Toro left a million tons of wet clay "goo," mining equipment, and other materials on the property.

  • The bankruptcy court held that Saddleback’s claim, which asserted waste, nuisance, and other tort theories, would not be limited by the Section 502(b)(6) cap. 
  • Following its McSheridan precedent, the BAP reversed and held that any damages would be subject to the cap. 
  • Interestingly, two of the three judges on the BAP panel filed concurring opinions, voicing doubts about the wisdom of the McSheridan case. A copy of the BAP’s unpublished El Toro decision from July 2005 is available here.

Judge Kozinski’s Analysis. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the BAP’s decision, holding that the cap did not apply to the landlord’s tort claims. Judge Alex Kozinski authored the opinion and analyzed the key issues this way:

The structure of the cap—measured as a fraction of the remaining term—suggests that damages other than those based on a loss of future rental income are not subject to the cap. It makes sense to cap damages for lost rental income based on the amount of expected rent: Landlords may have the ability to mitigate their damages by re-leasing or selling the premises, but will suffer injury in proportion to the value of their lost rent in the meantime. In contrast, collateral damages are likely to bear only a weak correlation to the amount of rent: A tenant may cause a lot of damage to a premises leased cheaply, or cause little damage to premises underlying an expensive leasehold.

One major purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow creditors to receive an aliquot share of the estate to settle their debts. Metering these collateral damages by the amount of the rent would be inconsistent with the goal of providing compensation to each creditor in proportion with what it is owed. Landlords in future cases may have significant claims for both lost rental income and for breach of other provisions of the lease. To limit their recovery for collateral damages only to a portion of their lost rent would leave landlords in a materially worse position than other creditors. In contrast, capping rent claims but allowing uncapped claims for collateral damage to the rented premises will follow congressional intent by preventing a potentially overwhelming claim for lost rent from draining the estate, while putting landlords on equal footing with other creditors for their collateral claims.

The statutory language supports this interpretation. The cap applies to damages “resulting from” the rejection of the lease. 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6). Saddleback’s claims for waste, nuisance and trespass do not result from the rejection of the lease—they result from the pile of dirt allegedly left on the property. Rejection of the lease may or may not have triggered Saddleback’s ability to sue for the alleged damages.But the harm to Saddleback’s property existed whether or not the lease was rejected. A simple test reveals whether the damages result from the rejection of the lease: Assuming all other conditions remain constant, would the landlord have the same claim against the tenant if the tenant were to assume the lease rather than rejecting it? Here, Saddleback would still have the same claim it brings today had El Toro accepted the lease and committed to finish its term: The pile of dirt would still be allegedly trespassing on Saddleback’s land and Saddleback still would have the same basis for its theories of nuisance, waste and breach of contract. The million-ton heap of dirt was not put there by the rejection of the lease—it was put there by the actions and inactions of El Toro in preparing to turn over the site.

(Footnotes omitted.)

McSheridan Holding Overruled. The Ninth Circuit opinion noted the two concurrences from the BAP decision questioning McSheridan and suggested that the BAP consider adopting an en banc procedure to reconsider such doubtful precedents. Given the Ninth Circuit’s holding, it will come as no surprise that the Court of Appeals also explicitly overruled McSheridan:

To the extent that McSheridan holds section 502(b)(6) to be a limit on tort claims other than those based on lost rent, rent-like payments or other damages directly arising from a tenant’s failure to complete a lease term, it is overruled.

The Ninth Circuit noted that McSheridan also holds that "damages flowing from the failure of a party that has rejected a lease to perform future routine repairs or pay utility bills are capped," but declined to address — or overrule — that holding.

Post-El Toro Ramifications.  At least in the Ninth Circuit, with McSheridan overruled landlords will work hard to characterize their damage claims as arising from tort theories or otherwise not being based on "lost rent, rent-like payments or other damages directly arising from a tenant’s failure to complete the lease term." At the negotiation stage, when the market permits landlords may demand larger security deposits and letters of credit on the view that the Section 502(b)(6) cap no longer limits every type of damage recoverable against such security. They may also structure leases to separate claims for items such as clean-up costs, hazardous waste removal, property damage, and even tenant improvement repayments from rent claims, in an attempt to bolster the argument that these claims fall outside of the cap.

Conclusion. Like a bull charging a matador, the El Toro decision has ripped a hole in the Section 502(b)(6) cape previously used to turn away cap-busting landlord claims. Time will tell just how significant the decision turns out to be, but at first blush it seems that debtors and non-landlord creditors may be the ones who end up seeing red. 

Recent Developments

PIMCO’s Bill Gross On Home Prices, Changes In the Credit Markets, And Their Impact On The Fed’s Future Rate Decisions

Bill Gross, Managing Director at Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, known as PIMCO, has some interesting comments on the credit markets, housing prices, the economy, and how the Federal Reserve should respond. In his October 2007 Investment Outlook newsletter, he offers several cogent observations:

  • "The modern financial complex has morphed into something unrecognizable to many astute market veterans and academics."
  • National housing prices are expected to decline 10% to 15% over the next several years.
  • Home prices have a more significant impact on consumer spending habits and confidence than do stock prices.
  • Fed policy should move rates up like an escalator (25 basis point increases) but down like an elevator (50 basis point cuts).
  • "A U.S. Fed easing cycle historically has required a destination of 1% real short rates or lower. Under a conservative assumption of 2½% inflation, that implies Fed Funds at 3¾% or so over the next 6-12 months."
  • Rate cuts "will likely be interrupted by false hopes of a housing bottom, fears of a dollar crisis, or misinterpreted one month’s signs of employment gains and faux economic strength."
  • "The downward path of home prices, however, will dominate Fed policy over the next several years as will the lingering unwind of related financial structures and derivatives that have yet to be discovered by the public, and marked to market by their conduit holders."

Those tracking how the direction of the economy may impact the level of future Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings will find the entire Investment Outlook well worth reading.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Ordinary Course Preference Case Takes Extraordinary Turn: Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Local Bankruptcy Rule On Jury Trials

Preference lawsuits are filed all the time in bankruptcy cases and the ordinary course of business defense is frequently asserted. Still, it’s the rare case that ends up with a federal court of appeals decision addressing jury trial rights and invalidating a bankruptcy court’s local rule. This post is about just such a case.

The Bankruptcy Preference. As a quick refresher, preferences are payments or other transfers made in the 90 days prior to a bankruptcy filing, on account of antecedent or pre-existing debt, at a time when the debtor was insolvent, that allow the transferee (the preference defendant) to be "preferred" by recovering more than it would have had the transfer not been made and the defendant instead had simply filed a proof of claim for the amount involved. The 90-day reachback period is extended to a full year prior to the bankruptcy petition for insiders such as officers, directors, and affiliates.

Jury Trials In Bankruptcy Cases? Preference defendants who do not file proofs of claim in the main bankruptcy case have the option to demand a trial by jury in the preference lawsuit. This is a right protected by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. The parties in the lawsuit can consent to having the bankruptcy court conduct the jury trial but this doesn’t happen very often. Why would a preference defendant make a jury demand? Here are three common reasons:

  • The defendant believes a jury would be more inclined to find in its favor than a bankruptcy judge;
  • The defendant wants the case moved to federal district court from the bankruptcy court, which some defendants perceive as more debtor-friendly; and
  • Jury trials are more expensive and complex, a fact the preference defendant may hope will translate into settlement leverage.

The HealthCentral.com Case. In a recent case, Sigma Micro Corporation, a company sued for an alleged preference by debtor HealthCentral.com, made just such a jury trial demand. It then filed a motion for certification before the bankruptcy court seeking to have its case moved to the district court, in accordance with Local Rule 9015-2(b) of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. That Local Rule, entitled "Certification to District Court," provides:

If the Bankruptcy Judge determines that [a] demand was timely made and the party has a right to a jury trial, and if all parties have not filed written consent to a jury trial before the Bankruptcy Judge, the Bankruptcy Judge shall certify to the District Court that the proceeding is to be tried by a jury and that the parties have not consented to a jury trial in the Bankruptcy Court. Upon such certification, [the jurisdictional] reference of the proceeding shall be automatically withdrawn, and the proceeding assigned to a Judge of the District . . . .

The Bankruptcy Court held that Sigma had a right to a jury trial but then stayed its order to retain jurisdiction for pre-trial matters. It later granted the debtor’s motion for summary judgment in the preference case, finding no genuine issue of material fact and rejecting Sigma’s ordinary course of business defense. On appeal, Sigma argued that the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction to enter summary judgment because it should have transferred the case to the District Court upon finding that Sigma was entitled to a jury trial. It also argued that it had raised genuine issues of material fact on its ordinary course of business defense, precluding summary judgment.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision. On September 21, 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the case (available here).  In addressing the jurisdiction question, the Ninth Circuit confronted "an issue of first impression in this circuit, that is, the validity of Local Rule 9015-2(b)." After reviewing the right of courts to promulgate local rules, it came to the core of the issue:

Considering these rules we hold Local Rule 9015-2(b) to be invalid as it establishes a procedure for withdrawing the district court’s jurisdictional reference inconsistent with the Acts of  Congress and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Cf. Coffey v. Marina Management Servs. (In re Kool, Mann, Coffee), 23 F.3d 66, 67-69 (3rd Cir. 1994) (finding local rule invalid because of inconsistency with Bankruptcy Code); In re Morrissey, 717 F.2d 100, 104-05 (3rd Cir. 1983) (same).

The Ninth Circuit noted that 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) provides that a "district court" may withdraw the reference of all or a part of a case or proceeding and that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011(a) expressly states that a "motion for withdrawal of a case or proceeding shall be heard by a district judge." Putting these two provisions together, the Court of Appeals held:

After careful review we find the procedure established by Local Rule 9105-2(b) cannot be squared with the procedure established by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), an “Act of Congress,” and Rule 5011(a), a “Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure.” Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 9029. At least two inconsistencies bear mentioning. First, Local Rule 9015-2(b) allows for the bankruptcy court to “withdraw[ ]” the jurisdictional reference, whereas 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and Rule 5011(a) make it explicit that only a district court may “withdraw” the jurisdictional reference. See FTC v. First Alliance Mortg. Co. (In re First Alliance Mortg. Co.), 282 B.R. 894, 901 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (holding that “a motion [to withdrawal] is heard by the district court”) (emphasis added). Second, Local Rule 9015-2(b) permits a party to obtain a withdrawal of the reference upon a “Motion for Certification,” while 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and Rule 5011(a) make it clear that a party may only obtain a withdrawal of the reference upon a “Motion for Withdrawal.” See Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Air Group, Inc., 355 B.R. 214, 218 (D. Hi. 2006) (holding that “a litigant who believes that a certain [action] or portion of a [action] pending in the bankruptcy court should be litigated in the district court may make a motion to withdraw the reference”) (emphasis added).

Having invalidated the Local Rule, the Ninth Circuit found no error in the Bankruptcy Court’s decision not to adhere to it or to withdraw the reference. The Court of Appeal then considered whether the Seventh Amendment jury trial right itself required immediate transfer to the District Court, even for pre-trial proceedings. The Ninth Circuit agreed with courts outside the circuit that, it stated, had universally agreed that a jury trial right "does not mean that the bankruptcy court must instantly give up jurisdiction and that the case must be transferred to the district court."

Concluding that the Bankruptcy Court properly retained the case for pre-trial matters, the Ninth Circuit did ultimately reverse its grant of summary judgment. It found that Sigma had raised genuine issues of material fact on its ordinary course of business defense under the version of Section 547(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code in force prior to the amendments made by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

What About Local Rules In Other Courts? It appears that the Northern District of California’s local bankruptcy rule on certification of a jury trial right and transfer to the District Court is unusual. Some bankruptcy courts, including the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York, have no specific rule addressing withdrawal of the reference based on a jury demand. Others require a prompt motion for withdrawal of the reference to be filed with the District Court, as provided in Central District of California Local Bankruptcy Rule 9015-2(g). 

Conclusion. Although it appears that the decision’s direct impact is limited to the Northern District of California and its jury demand procedures, this case proves that even well-established local rules will be struck down if inconsistent with governing statutes. That’s a pretty extraordinary outcome for an ordinary course of business preference case. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

New Developments In The Cayman Islands Hedge Fund Chapter 15 Case

In a post earlier this month, I reported on the August 30, 2007 decision by Judge Burton R. Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denying Chapter 15 recognition to foreign proceedings pending in the Cayman Islands for two Bear Stearns hedge funds. In the August decision (available here), the Bankruptcy Court held that although the two hedge funds were organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, their business operations were in New York and not in the Cayman Islands, which essentially served as a "letter box."

The Involuntary Bankruptcy Option. After denying recognition, the Bankruptcy Court indicated that an alternative path would be for the foreign representatives to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court noted that Section 303(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, permitting a foreign representative to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition, had not been repealed when Chapter 15 was enacted. The foreign representatives were given time to pursue that option.

An Amended Opinion To Note An Inconsistency. A few days later, on September 5, 2007, Judge Lifland issued an amended opinion (available here) adding an interesting footnote on that very issue. In it, he suggested that the failure to repeal the involuntary bankruptcy provision may have been a mistake. Here’s the new footnote 15 to the amended opinion:

It would appear that the failure to repeal section 303(b)(4) along with section 304 may be a drafting error in view of the newly enacted section 1511(b) which likewise addresses the commencement of a case under sections 301 and 303. The inconsistencies of the two statutes have not been conformed.

The footnote did not change the decision but it raises a question whether the filing of an involuntary case after denial of Chapter 15 recognition is consistent with the intent of Chapter 15’s changes to the Bankruptcy Code. If the failure to repeal that section was truly a mistake, fixing it would mean that without Chapter 15 recognition, a foreign representative couldn’t obtain any bankruptcy protection in the United States.

The Foreign Representatives File A Motion For Stay Pending Appeal. On September 21, 2007, the foreign representatives for the two hedge funds filed an appeal from the decision and also a motion for stay pending appeal (click on link for a copy). The motion sought to have the order dissolving the stay of litigation against the two funds itself stayed until the appeal is resolved. In addition to arguing that the Bankruptcy Court’s decision was in error, the motion stated that the involuntary bankruptcy option was too expensive and could subject the hedge funds to competing main proceedings, one in the United States and one in the Cayman Islands, each with their own legal obligations.

Conditional Stay Granted Pending Appeal. According to media reports, at a hearing held on September 24, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to stay subject to the return to the United States of funds that had been transferred to the Cayman Islands in connection with the foreign proceedings. Stay tuned.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Patent Law Collides With Bankruptcy: Federal Circuit Denies Bankruptcy Liquidation Trust Standing To Sue For Patent Infringement

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over, among other areas, patent appeals, so it’s not every day that a Federal Circuit decision appears on this business bankruptcy blog. (Actually, it’s been about a year since this post discussing another Federal Circuit decision.) However, a September 19, 2007 opinion (available here) of the Federal Circuit rested largely on the intersection of patent law and the terms of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. Since the decision denied a trust created under the plan standing to bring the debtor’s patent infringement claims, it’s a significant one for debtors and creditors alike. After discussing the court’s decision I’ll conclude with my suggested take-away from the case.

The At Home Corporation Plan And Liquidation Trusts. The litigation arose in the At Home Corporation Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, which was filed in September 2001. As part of the confirmed plan of liquidation, a general unsecured creditor liquidation trust (called GUCLT) was created to pursue various claims for the benefit of creditors, including certain patent infringement claims against Microsoft Corporation. A separate liquidation trust (called AHLT) received ownership of the At Home patent at issue in the litigation, among other assets. GUCLT was not granted a license to the patent.

The Patent Litigation And Federal Circuit Decision. The patent litigation reached the Federal Circuit in 2006. Although the plan and related documents granted GUCLT the express right to pursue the patent litigation claims at issue, the Federal Circuit found that to be insufficient to confer standing. It held that the patent statutes provide protection to the party with a right to exclude, not the party with a right to sue. Because the right to exclude others from practicing the patent (part of AHLT’s rights) had been separated from the right to sue for infringement (GUCLT’s rights), GUCLT was not protected under the patent statutes. The Federal Circuit summed up the situation this way:

The problem for GUCLT and AHLT is that the exclusionary rights have been separated from the right to sue for infringement. The liquidation plan contractually separated the right to sue from the underlying legally protected interests created by the patent statutes—the right to exclude. For any suit that GUCLT brings, its grievance is that the exclusionary interests held by AHLT are being violated. GUCLT is not the party to which the statutes grant judicial relief. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 500. GUCLT suffers no legal injury in fact to the patent’s exclusionary rights. As the Supreme Court stated in Independent Wireless, the right to bring an infringement suit is “to obtain damages for the injury to his exclusive right by an infringer.” 269 U.S. at 469; see also Sicom, 222 F.3d at 1381 (“Standing to sue for infringement depends entirely on the putative plaintiff’s proprietary interest in the patent, not on any contractual arrangements among the parties regarding who may sue…”); Ortho, 52 F.3d at 1034 (“[A] right to sue clause cannot negate the requirement that, for co-plaintiff standing, a licensee must have beneficial ownership of some of the patentee’s proprietary rights.”).

Since GUCLT had the right to sue but not the right to exclude others from practicing the patent, and since AHLT had the right to exclude others but not the right to sue for infringement, neither liquidating trust could sue for the infringement alleged in the GUCLT’s underlying lawsuit. The Federal Circuit ruled that the problem could not be solved by the typical practice of joining the legal title holder, here AHLT, to the patent litigation as a party. Although such joinder solves prudential standing requirements, the court held that it does not solve the constitutional standing requirement of actual legal injury. GUCLT did not suffer legal injury because it had no right to exclude others from practicing the patent.

The Federal Circuit’s majority opinion prompted an interesting dissent, which ended with the following:

While I do not read any precedent as directly governing the peculiar circumstances of this case, I also do not read any as precluding co-plaintiff standing for GUCLT. I believe that, in denying all possibility for enforcing the patent, the majority opinion extends limitations on co-plaintiff standing without a reasoned basis. Accordingly, while neither GUCLT nor AHLT individually may pursue infringement litigation, I would not deprive the patent of all value. Because I would allow GUCLT and AHLT, as co-plaintiffs, standing to sue Microsoft, I respectfully dissent.

The View From IP Bloggers. Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O patent law blog has an interesting post on the case, and he gets special thanks for first reporting on the decision. For another view, you may find this post from the Patry Copyright Blog published by William Patry, Google’s Senior Copyright Counsel, of interest.

Important Lessons. On his patent law blog, Dennis Crouch gives the practice pointer that he believes patent lawyers should learn from the decision: "A non-title-holder must be granted an exclusive license as well as full litigation rights in order to have standing to sue for patent infringement." That is helpful advice for patent lawyers, but I have a suggestion of my own.

  • When intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, or trademarks is involved in a bankruptcy case, get expert advice from IP counsel, in addition to bankruptcy advice. The problem may be separating exclusionary rights from the right to sue for patent infringement one day and transferring a trademark without its goodwill the next.
  • This suggestion applies when dealing with, for example, the transfer of IP in a bankruptcy case, whether by liquidation trusts, Section 363 asset sales, or something else, or assessing the risk of continuing patent infringement when purchasing IP assets.
  • As the Federal Circuit’s decision shows, the interplay between IP issues and bankruptcy cases can be complex and the possible outcomes surprising. Getting expert advice can help you avoid these and other traps for the unwary.
Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

The Best Of Both Worlds: Can A Secured Creditor Get A Section 503(b)(9) “20 Day Goods” Administrative Claim Too?

In a decision from August 17, 2007, just released for publication, the Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) faced a previously unanswered question under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, the section enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (known as BAPCPA).  Is a Section 503(b)(9) administrative claim available to secured creditors or only to unsecured creditors? You may find the BAP’s answer surprising.

A Section 503(b)(9) Refresher. For those who haven’t dealt with this relatively new section, here are the highlights. Section 503(b)(9) gives vendors an important right beyond the expanded reclamation claim also enacted as part of BAPCPA. Vendors are entitled to an administrative priority claim for "the value of any goods received by the debtor within 20 days before" the date a bankruptcy petition was filed "in which the goods have been sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of such debtor’s business." 

  • In most cases, particularly Chapter 11 cases in which a plan of reorganization is confirmed, administrative claims are paid in full on the effective date of the plan. General unsecured claims, by contrast, often receive only cents on the dollar, and even secured creditors can be "crammed down" and forced to accept payments over a period of time. This new administrative claim is therefore a significant benefit, in effect putting vendors selling goods to a debtor in the 20 days before the bankruptcy filing on par with vendors selling goods after the bankruptcy filing. It’s available even if a seller of goods fails to provide the required notice to have a post-bankruptcy reclamation claim. 
  • For a more detailed analysis of Section 503(b)(9), you may find this earlier post entitled "20 Day Goods: New Administrative Claim For Goods Sold Just Before Bankruptcy" useful, as well as a later post giving an update on a few early court decisions on the section. 
  • For more on the changes BAPCPA made to reclamation, you may want to read an earlier post entitled "Reclamation: Can A Vendor "Get The Goods" From An Insolvent Customer" and this post on some of the limitations of reclamation.

The Brown & Cole Stores Case. It was against this backdrop that the BAP analyzed the question before it in the In re Brown & Cole Stores, LLC case. Brown & Cole is a privately held grocery chain operating in Washington state. Its principal supplier and wholesaler, Associated Grocers, Incorporated (AGI), is a cooperative whose largest shareholder is Brown & Cole itself. In Brown & Cole’s Chapter 11 case, AGI asserted a "20 day goods" claim of more than $6 million, and also asserted that it was a secured creditor with a pledge of AGI’s own stock owned by Brown & Cole. Brown & Cole alleged a number of claims against AGI and argued that it had a right of setoff on those claims against any "20 day goods" claim.

When AGI moved for allowance of a Section 503(b)(9) claim, Brown & Cole argued that AGI was not eligible for that administrative claim because it was a secured creditor. The bankruptcy court rejected that argument and granted AGI’s motion. It also denied Brown & Cole’s request for a setoff of its own prepetition claims against the administrative claim, among other reasons because of what the bankruptcy court found to be Brown & Cole’s inequitable conduct in ordering goods just prior to its bankruptcy filing.

The BAP’s Decision. After hearing the appeal, the BAP issued its opinion and identified the first question presented as "Is a secured claim entitled to an administrative priority pursuant to section 503(b)(9)?" The opinion’s introduction shows that the BAP was aware of the interest creditors would have in its decision:

This case presents us with an issue of first impression regarding new section 503(b)(9) (“§  503(b)(9)”) of the Bankruptcy Code, as amended in 2005. We expect that the issue is of great importance to many sellers of goods to troubled companies. The new provision gives expense-of-administration priority (“administrative priority”) to a claim for the value of goods received by a debtor within 20 days before the commencement of the case and sold in the ordinary course of business (“twenty-day sales”). The bankruptcy court granted administrative priority to a claim that may also be secured and denied the debtor’s claim of setoff. We AFFIRM the grant of administrative priority; we REVERSE the denial of setoff.

(Footnotes omitted.)

Secured Creditors Are Entitled To Section 503(b)(9) Claims. In reaching its holding, the BAP majority rejected Brown & Cole’s primary argument that the Court should interpret Section 503(b)(9) as applying only to unsecured claims. Brown & Cole argued that at the same time as it added Section 503(b)(9), BAPCPA amended another subsection of Section 503 dealing with tax claims, specifically Section 503(b)(1)(B)(i), to clarify that it was available to "secured or unsecured" creditors.  In contrast, Congress did not include the words "secured claim" in Section 503(b)(9). This difference, Brown & Cole argued, should lead the BAP to hold that the "20 day goods" administrative claim is not available to secured creditors. The BAP’s response was clear:

We reject that invitation. The provision is not ambiguous; as such, we must enforce it according to its terms and should not inquire beyond its plain language. Lamie, 540 U.S. at 534. Apart from finding no ambiguity in § 503(b)(9), we note that Congress also declined to put the word  “unsecured” into the same statute. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that all claims arising  from twenty-day sales are entitled to administrative priority.

(Footnote omitted). The BAP majority also rejected a policy argument advanced by Brown & Cole (B&C), and adopted by Judge Alan Jaroslovsky in his dissent:

We can do nothing about B&C’s contention that giving priority to a secured creditor may be inequitable to other creditors. First, it is up to Congress to decide which creditors have leverage and which do not. More importantly, if AGI’s twenty-day sales claim is fully secured, then payment of it by B&C will free the value of the security for that claim for the benefit of other  creditors. If AGI’s claim proves to be undersecured or unsecured, then to deny administrative priority would be to ignore the statute, something we cannot do.

In a footnoted response to the dissenting opinion, Judge Dennis Montali, writing for himself and Judge Randall L. Dunn, expanded on the point:

The dissent is concerned that we are ignoring bankruptcy policy that permits a Chapter 11 debtor to “cramdown” a secured claim in full over time. Congress gave tremendous leverage to a twenty-day sales claimant such as AGI by permitting it to demand full payment as of confirmation, and in doing so, perhaps dramatically affecting the outcome of the case. The fact that the claim is also secured represents less leverage (albeit more than held by non-priority general unsecured claims) than having administrative priority. It is not our place to reallocate that leverage. In any event, if the dissent’s view were the law, the holder of a twenty-day sales claim could simply waive its security, obtain administrative priority, and have equally powerful influence over the outcome of the case.

Setoff May Be Proper. The BAP (the dissent joined in this part of the majority opinion) also reversed the denial of Brown & Cole’s setoff request, holding that although prepetition unsecured claims (the kind Brown & Cole asserted against AGI) cannot generally be set off against administrative claims because of a lack of mutuality, here the administrative claim itself arose prepetition, specifically in the 20 days before the bankruptcy filing. On the finding of inequitable conduct in ordering goods and receiving just prior to bankruptcy, the BAP held that there was insufficient evidence of inequitable conduct and that a "debtor contemplating reorganization is under no legal obligation to inform suppliers that it is contemplating a bankruptcy filing." The BAP reversed and remanded that issue to the bankruptcy court.

A Dissenting Voice. Judge Jaroslovsky dissented from what he described as the majority’s "overly-sterile conclusion that a fully secured creditor can also have rights under § 503(b)(9)," stating that "[n]ot only is my statutory analysis different, but I see compelling policy reasons for a different result." He found that the plain language of Section 503(b)(9) did not resolve the question of whether secured creditors could be entitled to the administrative priority in light of the change made to Section 503(b)(1)(B)(i). He then turned to the policy issues:

Moreover, some fundamental policy considerations are at stake in this case. While allowing a priority claim to a secured creditor may not have a big impact in most Chapter 7 cases, it can  make a huge difference in a Chapter 11 case like this one. If AGI’s $6 million claim is entitled to priority status, § 1129(a)(9)(A) requires that it must be paid in full in cash upon confirmation. If  it is treated as a secured claim, it still must be paid in full but is subject to cramdown pursuant to § 1129(b)(2)(A). If we incorporate by implication the “secured or unsecured” language into § 503(b)(9), we may be in effect giving a secured creditor veto power over a plan of reorganization when § 1129(b)(2)(A) and sound bankruptcy policy dictate that a secured creditor can be forced  to accept a plan which is fair and equitable to it, honors its secured status and pays its secured claim in full over time.

I would weave the new § 503(b)(9) into the tapestry of American bankruptcy law, preserving the clear intent of Congress to protect recent suppliers of goods to debtors without unraveling other provisions of the Code meant to facilitate reorganization. I prefer this result to the crazy quilt patched together by my brethren.

In his footnote to the prior paragraph, Judge Jaroslovsky stated: "Specifically, I would hold that a creditor would not be entitled to priority status for its twenty-day sales claim to the extent the claim is indubitably secured, applying any security first to claims other than the twenty-day sales claim. I note that AGI might well end up with an allowed priority twenty-day sales claim under this rule."

More Leverage For Secured Vendors. As both the majority and dissent discussed, a secured creditor who has the benefit of a Section 503(b)(9) administrative claim will have considerable leverage in getting paid in full upon confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan. Most secured creditors lend money instead of supplying goods, but a number of vendors do hold collateral for their claims. Even though BAP decisions (in contrast to Court of Appeals decisions) generally are not binding precedent, other courts may find this decision persuasive. If followed widely, secured creditors entitled to assert a Section 503(b)(9) claim will have a noticeable advantage in getting paid. In addition, as the dissent noted, this decision may also make it more difficult for debtors to confirm Chapter 11 plans unless they have the cash to pay all "20 day goods" administrative claims upon their exit from bankruptcy.