Business Bankruptcy Issues

Showing: 57 - 63 of 163 Articles
Business Bankruptcy Issues

The SIPC And SIPA Liquidations: When A Brokerage Firm Goes Bankrupt

It’s an organization that can go for years without ever making the news. Then along comes a financial crisis — and Lehman Brothers and Madoff — and suddenly the SIPC finds itself at the center of some very big stories. This post takes a look at the SIPC, its role in broker-dealer liquidations, how a SIPA liquidation differs from Chapter 7 liquidation, and how it affects businesses and individuals with accounts at a failed brokerage firm.

What Is The SIPC? SIPC stands for the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. This federally-created nonprofit corporation describes its mission as follows:

When a brokerage firm is closed due to bankruptcy or other financial difficulties and customer assets are missing, SIPC steps in as quickly as possible and, within certain limits, works to return customers’ cash, stock and other securities. Without SIPC, investors at financially troubled brokerage firms might lose their securities or money forever or wait for years while their assets are tied up in court.

The SIPC and its activities are governed by the Securities Investor Protection Act, known as SIPA, which was enacted in 1970. The SIPA is not in Title 11 of the United States Code where the Bankruptcy Code is found, but in Title 15, together with other securities laws. That said, the SIPA incorporates many provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

When Does The SIPC Get Involved? When a SIPC-member brokerage fails, the SIPC has the authority to step in. If the brokerage has filed a bankruptcy — and notwithstanding the automatic stay — the SIPC can file a lawsuit in the district court seeking a protective decree. Once granted, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding is put on hold and the case becomes a SIPA liquidation instead.  Here’s how the SIPC explains its role:

The [SIPC] either acts as trustee or works with an independent court-appointed trustee in a missing asset case to recover funds. The statute that created SIPC provides that customers of a failed brokerage firm receive all non-negotiable securities that are already registered in their names or in the process of being registered. All other so-called "street name" securities are distributed on a pro rata basis. At the same time, funds from the SIPC reserve are available to satisfy the remaining claims of each customer up to a maximum of $500,000. This figure includes a maximum of $100,000 on claims for cash. Recovered funds are used to pay investors whose claims exceed SIPC’s protection limit of $500,000. SIPC often draws down its reserve to aid investors.  

As this explanation notes, there is a $500,000 per customer limit to SIPC protection, including a $100,000 limit on claims for cash held in an account. These apply to both businesses and individuals. Some brokerage firms also have private insurance in addition to the SIPC protection.

How Is A SIPA Liquidation Different From A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy? Although Chapter 7 bankruptcy and SIPA liquidations both involve the liquidation of a brokerage firm, there is an enormous difference in terms of what happens to each customer’s securities.

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy of a brokerage firm, the bankruptcy trustee is required to liquidate — that means sell — all of the securities held in "street name" by the failed brokerage. Section 748 of the Bankruptcy Code, part of Chapter 7’s special stockbroker liquidation provisions, spells it out:

As soon as practicable after the date of the order for relief, the trustee shall reduce to money, consistent with good market practice, all securities held as property of the estate, except for customer name securities delivered or reclaimed under section 751 of this title.

Subject to certain exceptions, in Chapter 7 customers receive a pro rata share of the proceeds from the sale of the securities, not the securities themselves. The only securities that are not sold are "customer name securities," which are handed back to their owners. (More on the difference between street name and customer name securities below.)

In a SIPA liquidation, the trustee’s goal is exactly the opposite. Instead of being required to sell the securities, a SIPA trustee works to return to customers the securities in their accounts, often through a transfer of the accounts to a financially healthy brokerage firm.  When that isn’t possible, the SIPA trustee has the authority to purchase securities to replace any that were missing, tapping into the SIPC’s reserve fund when necessary to cover the acquisition costs. If securities are missing or the SIPA trustee is otherwise unable to return a customer’s "street name" securities, then the brokerage’s firms remaining customer assets are divided up and funds distributed on a pro rata basis based on the total size of "net equity claims" of customers (generally, net of any margin loans owed by the customer). As in a Chapter 7, "customer name securities" are returned to the customer, including those in the process of being registered in the customer’s name.

Customers generally prefer SIPA liquidations over Chapter 7 bankruptcy. (Stockbrokers and commodity brokers are not permitted to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.) Most SIPC member brokerages that file bankruptcy end up either in a SIPA liquidation or with the SIPC directly involved.

What Are Customer Name Securities? As an aside, there is a big distinction between street name and customer name securities.

  • As the term implies, customer name securities are a typically limited group of securities held by a brokerage firm that are literally registered with the issuer in the customer’s name, such as an actual stock certificate registered in and bearing the customer’s own name.
  • These days most securities are registered in "street name," with the actual legal owner being Cede & Co., the Depository Trust Corporation’s nominee name.
  • Each brokerage has its own DTC participant account holding the securities for all of its customers, and the brokerage in turn keeps records of which customer owns which securities in the DTC account.
  • Street name securities are far easier to trade than customer name securities because the trade can be accomplished via DTC instead of having to make a physical transfer of a stock certificate.

The Customer Claim Bar Date. In both a Chapter 7 and a SIPA liquidation, a deadline, known as a bar date, will be established by which creditors claims must be filed. However, in a SIPA liquidation a separate "customer claim" bar date is also set. Customers seeking SIPC protection must file their claims by that date using a special customer claim form, which asks for details on the securities in the customer’s account, dates of trades, and other information. Follow the link for an example of the SIPC claim form used in the Lehman Brothers SIPA liquidation. If the customer’s account has not already been transferred to a solvent brokerage firm, a customer with an allowed claim will receive back the securities that were held in their account at the failed brokerage firm, together with any cash held, up to the SIPC protection limits.

Where To Learn More About SIPA Liquidations. For additional information on SIPA liquidations and their Chapter 7 counterparts, you may find this discussion on the U.S. Court system’s website of interest. In addition, SIPA trustees appointed in brokerage cases frequently establish a case-specific website. These links will take you to the websites created by the Lehman Brothers SIPA trustee and the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities SIPA trustee.

Conclusion. They may not be common, and the SIPC does not provide the same type of protection as the FDIC, but SIPA liquidations can play an important role in protecting investors when brokerage firms fail. However, the SIPC is generally able to intervene only when one of its member firms fails, making that little-noticed "Member SIPC" designation more significant that most investors realize. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Amendments To The Federal Bankruptcy Rules Take Effect December 1, 2008

Nearly every year, changes are made to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure — the ones that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — to address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. This year’s amendments to the national bankruptcy rules take effect on December 1, 2008. 

Business Bankruptcy Rule Changes. Unlike the more substantive modifications made last year (discussed here), this year’s amendments make a host of relatively smaller, but still important, changes. The most notable ones for business bankruptcy cases involve privacy concerns. New rules have been put in place to protect patients when health care businesses file for bankruptcy while others govern the proposed sale or transfer of personally identifiable information by any type of business. Separate rule changes implement provisions of Chapter 15 (the Bankruptcy Code’s cross-border and international insolvency chapter), address a range of issues in small business Chapter 11 cases, grant courts more flexibility in giving notice to foreign creditors, introduce various consumer bankruptcy procedural changes, and establish a process to allow some bankruptcy court decisions to be appealed directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Interim Bankruptcy Rules Being Replaced. These rules also replace the interim bankruptcy rules that have been in place for the past few years following the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (known as BAPCPA). Some bankruptcy courts, such as the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York, have already issued general orders retracting the effectiveness of the interim rules effective as of December 1, 2008.

Rules Of The Road. At a time when the financial crisis is likely to push more and more companies into Chapter 11, bankruptcy attorneys and other insolvency professionals will want to review the rule changes closely to make sure they are following the most current version of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. For debtors, creditors, and other parties, this year’s rule amendments should help make management of Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases more consistent with BAPCPA’s changes and, potentially, a more efficient process.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Fall 2008 Edition Of Bankruptcy Resource Is Now Available

The Fall 2008 edition of the Absolute Priority newsletter, published by the Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Bankruptcy & Restructuring group, of which I am a member, has just been released. The newsletter gives updates on current developments and trends in the bankruptcy and workout area. Follow the links in this sentence to access a copy of the newsletter or to register to receive future editions. You can also subscribe to the blog to learn when future editions of the Absolute Priority newsletter are published, as well as to get updates on other bankruptcy topics.

The latest edition of Absolute Priority covers a range of cutting edge topics, including:

  • Claims and defenses under the WARN Act;
  • The Supreme Court’s decision on transfer taxes and bankruptcy sales;
  • Section 363 "free and clear" sales in bankruptcy; and
  • The interplay between claim objections and the Section 503(b)(9) "20 day goods" administrative claim.

This edition also has information on some of our recent representations of official committees of unsecured creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases involving major retailers. These include Mervyn’s, Boscov’s, Hancock Fabrics, Steve & Barry’s, Goody’s, Sharper Image, The Bombay Company, and Shoe Pavilion, among others. In addition, a note from my partner Adam Rogoff, the editor of Absolute Priority, discusses how the current economic problems will require lenders, unsecured creditors, and others to consider the impact of Chapter 11 bankruptcy on their rights.

I hope you find this latest edition of Absolute Priority to be a helpful resource.

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

Second Liens And Recharacterization: Is More Litigation Around The Corner?

In many Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, unsecured creditors investigate whether a basis exists to recharacterize existing secured debt as equity. The reason? A successful challenge can turn first or second lien secured debt into "back-of-the-line" capital contributions, enabling unsecured creditors to realize a much greater recovery. A recent article by two of my Bankruptcy & Restructuring Group colleagues at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Ronald R. Sussman and Michael A. Klein, digs deeper into the complex issues behind these claims.

Appearing in the October 2008 edition of The Journal of Corporate Renewal published by the Turnaround Management Association, the article is entitled "Recharacterization Battles Likely in Next Round of Bankruptcies." You can access a copy of the article, reprinted with permission of The Journal of Corporate Renewal (© 2008, The Journal of Corporate Renewal), by clicking on its title in the prior sentence. It first discusses the concept of recharacterization itself, including the key factors courts typically apply. Next, the article compares recharacterization to the doctrine of equitable subordination under Section 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code and examines some of the key differences between the two.

After setting the stage, the article then looks ahead to what appears to be a coming wave of bankruptcy cases. It focuses on how future efforts by unsecured creditors to challenge second lien loans — a type of financing that has become a major part of corporate capital structures over the past several years — may fare:

The next wave of bankruptcies undoubtedly will include attempts by unsecured creditors to recharacterize second lien debt as equity, especially when the second lien holder is an insider of the debtor. However, the current framework established by Bankruptcy Courts presents significant obstacles to unsecured creditors seeking to knock out the second lien claims of lenders that provided capital on a purportedly secured basis to a struggling debtor that was unable to find capital from alternative sources.

The article observes that, given the present state of the law, courts will have to embrace a more flexible legal standard if unsecured creditors are to have success in recharacterizing second lien debt as equity. It concludes by offering a different approach for addressing recharacterization with this new landscape in mind. Unsecured creditors, lenders, insolvency professionals and others confronting these issues will find the article to be a helpful and interesting read.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

The 2005 Bankruptcy Law Changes And Their Impact On Retail Reorganizations

On September 26, 2008, my partner Lawrence Gottlieb, the Chair of the Bankruptcy & Restructuring Group at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, testified before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary.  Joining him at the hearing were Professor Jay Westbrook of the University of Texas Law School and Professor Barry Adler of the New York University School of Law. The subject of the hearing was "Lehman Brothers, Sharper Image, Bennigan’s, and Beyond: Is Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Working?" You can access their testimony and watch the full hearing by clicking on the link in the prior sentence.

In his testimony, entitled "The Disappearance of Retail Reorganization In The Post-BAPCPA Era," (a copy of which is available by clicking on its title), he discussed the major impact the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act ("BAPCPA") has had on retail reorganizations. One of his main observations involves the 2005 amendment limiting the time within which a debtor may assume or reject commercial real estate leases to a total of 210 days (if a 90-day extension is granted). He testified that this change, in combination with other BAPCPA provisions that reduce a retailer’s liquidity, has had a devastating effect on a retailer’s ability to reorganize. Among his comments are the following:

BAPCPA has left retailers without adequate time and money to effectuate operational initiatives and cost cutting measures needed to resuscitate their businesses. Retailers now enter the Chapter 11 arena with little choice but to narrowly tailor their strategy to ensure that their lenders are not deprived of the substantial benefits and protections conferred by section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which authorizes the use, sale or lease of estate property outside the ordinary course of business upon court approval. Section 363(b) offers the unique ability to cleanse the assets of a distressed company by permitting debtors to convey assets “free and clear,” thereby maximizing value by removing the uncertainty of such stigmas as successor liability, fraudulent transfer claims and lien issues that often accompany asset purchases. Prepetition lenders, cognizant of this powerful liquidating tool and mindful of the numerous liquidity hurdles that the debtor must clear as a result of BAPCPA, have little to gain by risking their collateral in pursuit of a reorganization process now widely perceived as hopeless.

Indeed, the constricted time frames and liquidity problems created and imposed by BAPCPA have effectively eliminated the need for existing lenders to provide any more financing than necessary to position the debtor to liquidate its assets in the first few months of the case. Today, the debtor is no longer “in possession” of its assets or its future upon the commencement of its Chapter 11 case. BAPCPA’s constrictive liquidity provisions and the enormous leverage handed to secured lenders as a result thereof have eliminated the ability of retailers to control the Chapter 11 process as a “debtor-in-possession.” Rather, the process is now controlled almost exclusively by prepetition lenders, who have essentially assumed the role of "creditor-in-possession." 

The Cooley Bankruptcy & Restructuring Group, which Lawrence Gottlieb chairs, is representing official committees of unsecured creditors in high-profile national and regional retail bankruptcies such as Steve & Barry’s, The Bombay Company, Hancock Fabrics, Lillian Vernon, The Sharper Image, Mervyns, Shoe Pavilion, Boscov’s and Goody’s. His testimony, drawing on experience in these recent cases as well as many others in the past, underscores how BAPCPA’s key changes have transformed Chapter 11 bankruptcy from a process by which retailers could reorganize into one where almost all face an early liquidation. Retailers, creditors, and insolvency professionals will find his full testimony on the disappearing retail reorganization both timely and informative.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

The Credit Crisis And DIP Financing

The credit crisis has made it difficult for companies to borrow throughout the economy. It should come as little surprise then that the constriction in the credit markets is hitting Chapter 11 debtors in possession as well. According to an article entitled "Bankruptcy financing gets pricier and more elusive," debtor in possession financing (commonly known as "DIP financing") has recently become more costly for companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy — when it’s available at all.

  • Adding to the challenge is the amount of prepetition secured financing, including second lien debt, that many companies took on over the past few years when financing was easier to get. A company that has already encumbered its assets with secured debt may have little or no unencumbered assets to offer a DIP lender as collateral.
  • The article predicts that fewer companies in Chapter 11 will be able to find new lenders to provide DIP financing, giving the DIP’s existing lenders the advantage in negotiating DIP financing terms such as interest rate and fees.
  • Alternative sources of DIP financing may be able to be found in certain circumstances. In some cases, the buyer in a Section 363 asset sale may provide DIP financing to bridge to the closing of the sale. However, such limited purpose financing is not a substitute for the type of DIP financing generally needed for a successful reorganization.

Cash is king in bankruptcy and DIP financing is often a key source of that cash. Until the credit crisis subsides and DIP financing becomes more available, companies may find it more difficult to reorganize in Chapter 11.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Ninth Circuit Rules In N.C.P. Marketing Trademark License Case

Back in March I gave an update on In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., a case addressing whether a debtor can assume a trademark license over the trademark owner’s objection. In 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued its first of a kind decision, In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D.Nev. 2005), holding that trademark licenses are personal and nonassignable in bankruptcy absent a provision in the trademark license to the contrary. Click here for a copy of the N.C.P Marketing Group decision and here and here to read earlier posts on the case. 

The N.C.P. Marketing Court’s Analysis. In reaching its conclusion, the District Court held that under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, a trademark owner has a right and duty to control the quality of goods sold under the mark:

Because the owner of the trademark has an interest in the party to whom the trademark is assigned so that it can maintain the good will, quality, and value of its products and thereby its trademark, trademark rights are personal to the assignee and not freely assignable to a third party. 

The trademark owner in that case, Billy Blanks of theBilly Blanks® Tae Bo® fitness program, successfully moved the court to compel rejection of the trademark license because under the "hypothetical test" analysis of Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contracts that cannot be assigned by the debtor without the nondebtor party’s consent cannot be assumed by the debtor either. (For a full discussion of these issues, take a look at this earlier post entitled "Assumption of Intellectual Property Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?")  

The Ninth Circuit Appeal. N.C.P. Marketing appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, the appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument had been scheduled for November 5, 2007.

  • Prior to the oral argument, the Chapter 7 trustee for N.C.P. Marketing reached a settlement in the case. At the trustee’s request, the Ninth Circuit took the oral argument off calendar and directed the parties to move to dismiss the appeal if the settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
  • However, instead of approving the settlement the Bankruptcy Court authorized a sale of the appeal rights to certain objecting parties, who then restarted the appeal before the Ninth Circuit and requested an oral argument.

The Ninth Circuit Affirms The District Court’s Decision. In an unpublished order dated May 23, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the request for oral argument and affirmed the District Court’s judgment "for the reasons provided by that court." The appellants’ request for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied by order dated July 9, 2008. The Ninth Circuit designated the May 23, 2008 order affirming the District Court as "not for publication," meaning it is not precedent under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Ninth Circuit’s Circuit Rules. Nevertheless, the order may be cited in other cases.

A Final Thought. Precedent or not, the Ninth Circuit’s order has affirmed the District Court’s decision on this important issue. Trademark owners now have a stronger argument in the Ninth Circuit (and also in the Southern District of Florida given the In re Wellington Vision, Inc. decision last year), that non-exclusive trademark licenses may not be assigned, or even assumed, in bankruptcy cases absent consent of the trademark owner.