Chapter 11

Showing: 92 - 98 of 127 Articles
Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

Are “Termination On Bankruptcy” Contract Clauses Enforceable?

Practically every contract has a provision that makes the bankruptcy or insolvency of one contracting party a trigger for the other party to terminate the contract. These are standard fare and rarely negotiated unless they also include a provision for the reversion back of ownership of property, often intellectual property, upon bankruptcy or insolvency. This post takes a look at these provisions and examines whether they are enforceable.

The Typical Ipso Facto Clause. Termination on bankruptcy provisions are often known as ipso facto clauses (the Latin phrase meaning "by the fact itself") because the language provides that the fact of bankruptcy itself is enough to trigger the termination of the agreement. Here’s a common provision:

This Agreement shall terminate, without notice, (i) upon the institution by or against either party of insolvency, receivership or bankruptcy proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of either party’s debts, (ii) upon either party making an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or (iii) upon either party’s dissolution or ceasing to do business.

Variants of this language are found in many types of contracts, including licenses, leases, and development agreements. Some provide that termination is automatic and others first require notice. Termination triggers may include:

  • Filing a voluntary bankruptcy;
  • Having an involuntary bankruptcy filed against a party;
  • Becoming insolvent (frequently the term is left undefined in the contract);
  • Admitting in writing that the party is insolvent;
  • Making a general assignment for the benefit of creditors (a liquidation alternative recognized under the laws of many states); or
  • Tripping a financial condition covenant.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of either party is frequently a termination trigger. However, when the financial condition of only one contracting party is in doubt, the more financially stable party may insist on a one-sided provision allowing it to get out of the agreement upon the weaker party’s insolvency or bankruptcy. 

Notso Fasto: The Bankruptcy Code Stops The Clause In Its Tracks. These termination provisions may be common, but are they enforceable? The short answer, which may be surprising to some, is generally "no." Two key provisions of the Bankruptcy Code lead to this result. First, Section 541(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an interest of the debtor (the bankrupt company or person) in property becomes "property of the estate," meaning that the debtor does not lose the property or contract right, despite a provision in an agreement:

that is conditioned on the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor, on the commencement of a case under this title, or on the appointment of or taking possession by a trustee in a case under this title or a custodian before such commencement, and that effects or gives an option to effect a forfeiture, modification, or termination of the debtor’s interest in property.

11 U.S.C. §541(c). Translated from bankruptcy-ese, this statute means that a clause that terminates a contract because of the "insolvency" or "financial condition" of the debtor, or due to the filing of a bankruptcy case, will be unenforceable once a bankruptcy case has been filed.

A second Bankruptcy Code provision, Section 365(e)(1), governs ipso facto clauses in executory contracts, which are agreements under which both sides still have important performance remaining (discussed in more detail in this earlier post). Section 365(e)(1) provides:

Notwithstanding a provision in an executory contract or unexpired lease, or in applicable law, an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor may not be terminated or modified, and any right or obligation under such contract or lease may not be terminated or modified, at any time after the commencement of the case solely because of a provision in such contract or lease that is conditioned on—

(A) the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor at any time before the closing of the case;
(B) the commencement of a case under this title; or
(C) the appointment of or taking possession by a trustee in a case under this title or a custodian before such commencement.
11 U.S.C. §365(e)(1). This statute generally makes ipso facto provisions in executory contracts and leases unenforceable.

Why Put Ipso Facto Clauses In Contracts In The First Place? If these termination provisions are generally unenforceable, why do parties seem to include them in almost every contract? There are three main reasons.

Force Of Habit. One reason is that under the old Bankruptcy Act of 1898, replaced by the Bankruptcy Code in 1979, these ipso facto clauses were enforceable. Over the years, lawyers and businesses got used to including them in their contract forms and they have continued to write them into many agreements. Since it’s always possible that the Bankruptcy Code could be changed to reinstate the old rule, lawyers often see little reason to take them out.

It Takes An Actual Bankruptcy. Another and perhaps more important reason is that the rule applies only if a bankruptcy is actually filed. If an ipso facto provision provides that the agreement terminates upon a party’s insolvency, and no bankruptcy case is ever filed, it’s possible that the solvent party could terminate the agreement using the ipso facto provision. But be forewarned: if a bankruptcy case is later filed, an insolvency-based termination made before the bankruptcy filing may not be enforced in the bankruptcy case. This means that the debtor may still have a chance to retain the rights under the contract, including assuming or assigning an executory contract during the bankruptcy case.

A Limited Exception In Bankruptcy. A third reason is that an important, albeit limited, exception to the rule applies even after a bankruptcy is filed. The exception stems less from the ipso facto clause itself and more from the rules governing assumption of certain types of executory contracts, including intellectual property licenses (at least in some circuits).

  • Section 365(e)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, in conjunction with Section 365(c)(1), provides that an ipso facto clause can be enforceable if the debtor or trustee is not permitted by "applicable law" to assume or assign the executory contract. Simply put, if applicable law provides that an IP license or another executory contract cannot be assumed by the debtor or trustee without the other party’s consent, then the non-debtor contracting party can force rejection of the license or seek relief from the automatic stay to terminate the agreement based on the ipso facto clause.
  • Although an analysis of the law governing assumption and assignment of IP licenses and related agreements is beyond the scope of this post, you can find a detailed discussion in an earlier one entitled "Assumption of IP Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?" 

A Word To The Wise. Parties include "termination on bankruptcy" provisions in contracts all the time, despite the general rule making them unenforceable in bankruptcy. Unfortunately, some do so without realizing that the provision may be ineffective, and that can lead to trouble. If enforcing an ipso facto clause is important to one of your agreements, especially if you also seek the highly problematic reversion of intellectual property or other rights upon such a termination, be sure to get specific legal advice on your situation, including whether alternative approaches may exist to help achieve your objectives.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Is The Default Rate On High-Yield Debt About To Double?

According to Moody’s, the credit rating and investor service firm, the default rate on high-yield or junk bond debt is likely to increase substantially from the current level of 1.4%. Moody’s predicts that the default rate will rise to 4.1% by August 2008 and then to 5.1% by August 2009. 

  • As reported by Credit, Moody’s director of corporate default research believes that "higher spreads and diminished liquidity" have increased the default risk for distressed issuers.
  • Unless the U.S. economy falls into a recession, however, the default rate is predicted to stay below its long-term average of 5.0%, at least until 2009. Any real downturn in the economy could push the default rate higher.

The New York Times DealBook Blog has a similar story, pointing out that Moody’s predicted in another report that the U.S. industries likely to have the highest default rate are packaging, construction, consumer durables, and automotive. Also, companies that need new financing will be more at risk than firms that already obtained financing on the favorable terms available in the credit markets until recently.

As The DealBook Blog points out, a rising default rate will likely lead to an increase in Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings. Stay tuned. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Another Court Follows The Footstar Decision On Assumption Of IP Licenses In Bankruptcy

Intellectual property licenses continue to be significant to companies across a wide range of industries. This fact makes their treatment in business bankruptcy cases a topic of keen interest. 

Can A Debtor Licensee Retain IP License Rights? When the debtor in possession is a licensee under a patent, copyright, or trademark license, a key question arises: Can the license be assumed (bankruptcy-speak for kept) or will the bankruptcy filing put the licensor in a position to force rejection of the license — resulting in the ultimate termination of the debtor’s right to use the licensed IP?  A new case, discussed below, recently sided with the debtor in possession.

One Statute, Three Tests. This issue has led to a significant split of authority among bankruptcy courts and courts of appeal around the country, stemming from different interpretations of the language in Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. That section provides as follows:

(c) The trustee may not assume or assign any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties, if—

(1)(A) applicable law excuses a party, other than the debtor, to such contract or lease from accepting performance from or rendering performance to an entity other than the debtor or the debtor in possession, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties; and

(B) such party does not consent to such assumption or assignment.

Some courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have sided with the licensor and interpret Section 365(c)(1) to prohibit both assignment and assumption. Other courts, including the First Circuit, have permitted such licenses to be assumed.

  • Despite the split, most courts agree that Section 365(c)(1) prohibits assignment of executory contracts without the non-debtor contracting party’s consent if "applicable law" requires such consent because that would require the non-debtor party to accept performance from a new party. 
  • A number of courts have held that when the "applicable law" is federal patent, copyright, or trademark law, such consent is required.
  • Courts diverge, however, on whether the statute’s language should be read to prohibit a debtor in possession from assuming such executory contracts or only from assigning them.

Rather than cover that ground here, if this topic is new to you I suggest reading an earlier post entitled "Assumption Of Intellectual Property Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?" It discusses in detail how different courts have interpreted Section 365(c)(1), leading to the licensor-favorable "hypothetical test," the debtor-favorable "actual test," and the newer, debtor-favorable Footstar analysis. 

A Word On Footstar. Before moving on to the new decision, a brief word about the Footstar case may be helpful. In In re Footstar, Inc,, 323 B.R. 566 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005), Judge Adlai Hardin of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York took a somewhat different approach in analyzing the statute. He concluded that Section 365(c)(1)’s use of the word "trustee" does not (as other courts had taken for granted) include the debtor or debtor in possession when assumption is sought because assumption does not require the non-debtor party to accept performance from a new party other than the debtor or debtor in possession. A trustee is a new party and the statute logically provides that a trustee may not "assume or assign" such an executory contract.

A Common Scenario. How does this issue come up in Chapter 11 cases? Well, here’s a typical situation. The debtor is the licensee under a prepetition patent license. The patent licensor files a motion to compel the debtor in possession to reject the patent license agreement or alternatively to have the automatic stay lifted to permit the licensor to cancel the agreement. The licensor argues that under the "hypothetical test" interpretation of Section 365(c)(1), the debtor in possession cannot assign the license and, as a result, cannot assume the license either. With neither option open, the licensor argues, the debtor in possession should be compelled to reject the license.

The Aerobox Decision. This was the situation that recently played out in the In re Aerobox Composite Structures, LLC Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Ruling on just such a motion by a patent licensor, on July 27, 2007, Judge Mark B. McFeeley of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico issued an 11-page decision holding that the actual test, and Judge Hardin’s analysis in Footstar, was the correct interpretation of Section 365(c)(1). As such, he denied the licensor’s motion and held that the debtor in possession was not barred by Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code from assuming the prepetition patent license at issue in that case. The Bankruptcy Court summed up its holding as follows:

Similarly, the bankruptcy court in Footstar reasons that it makes perfect sense for the statute, which uses the term, “trustee,” to prohibit the trustee from assuming or assigning a contract, because the trustee is an “entity other than the debtor in possession” but it makes no sense to read “trustee” to mean “debtor in possession.” Footstar, 323 B.R. at 573. Doing so

would render the provision a virtual oxymoron, since mere assumption [by the debtor in possession] (without assignment) would not compel the counterparty to accept performance from or render it to “an entity other than” the debtor.

Id.

This Court agrees.

Thus, where the debtor-in-possession seeks to assume, or, as is the situation in the instant case, where the debtor-in-possession has neither sought to assume nor reject the executory contract but simply continues to operate post-petition under its terms, 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1) does not prohibit assumption of the contract by the debtor-in-possession and cannot operate to allow the non-debtor party to the executory contract to compel the Debtor to reject the contract. In reaching this conclusion, the Court finds that the “actual test” articulated in Cambridge Biotech, and the reasoning of the court in Footstar, is the better approach to § 365(c)(1) when determining whether a debtor-in-possession is precluded from assuming an executory contract.

Venue Still Matters. The decision is interesting because it represents another bankruptcy court, this time outside of the Southern District of New York, endorsing the analysis in the Footstar decision. That said, Judge McFeeley wrote on something of a clean slate because the Tenth Circuit has not yet taken a view on whether the hypothetical test, the actual test, or the Footstar analysis controls. As this circuit-by-circuit chart of Section 365(c)(1) decisions shows (last updated in March 2007), many other circuits have staked out a position on the issue. Absent a Supreme Court decision or new legislation resolving the circuit split, where a debtor files bankruptcy will continue to make a big difference in the relative rights of licensors and debtors over intellectual property licenses in Chapter 11 cases.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Have Section 363 Sale Orders Gone Too Far?

Concerned about the broad-reaching and complex forms of Section 363 asset orders being submitted for approval, this past week the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California issued a set of "Guidelines re Sale Orders" as well as a form of "Model Sale Order." (Each document is available by clicking on its respective title in the prior sentence.) The Bankruptcy Court’s opening discussion of the Guidelines expresses its reasons for issuing them now:

The bankruptcy judges of the Northern District of California have become increasingly concerned about the orders they are being asked to sign on motions to approve sales of property of the estate under section 363(b) and 363(f).  Many of the proposed orders submitted:  (a) seek relief beyond the scope of the motion before the court; (b) seek to affect parties not before the court; (c) seek advisory rulings where there is no case or controversy; (d) include findings of fact that should be stated orally or in a separate memorandum; and (e) are so wordy and complex that the court has difficulty determining their meaning. 

The crafting of orders is a judicial function. Accordingly, the judges have approved a model order for motions seeking authority to sell property of the estate and motions to sell such property free and clear of liens.  The following guidelines are intended to explain how to use the model order, and what provisions the court will and will not generally approve as additions to the model order or where the parties draft their own order.  These guidelines do not apply to any separate orders approving bidding procedures, break-up fees or other matters related to the sale of property.  In addition, these guidelines do not apply in Chapter 13 cases.

The model order is not mandatory, but the judges will use the model order on their own motion where parties vary from these guidelines without sufficient cause and explanation. 

In the event that a party submits a sale order that deviates from these guidelines, the party shall, unless otherwise instructed by the court, submit a declaration to the court in which the party identifies the provisions that vary from these guidelines and sets forth the justification therefore.

(Emphasis in original.) Many bankruptcy lawyers who practice regularly in the Northern District of California, with divisions in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Santa Rosa (and courthouses in Eureka and Salinas), have already understood the prevailing view of the bankruptcy judges on these issues. However, the new guidelines help clarify matters for everyone facing these issues in the Northern District of California. 

The Section 363 Sale. As a reminder, a bankruptcy asset sale often happens in the first few weeks or months of a Chapter 11 case, rather than as part of a plan of reorganization. Frequently this will involve a sale of all or substantially all of a debtor’s business as a going concern. The sale is generally referred to as a "Section 363 sale" because Section 363 is the key Bankruptcy Code section that governs a debtor’s sale of assets in bankruptcy. The debtor must seek bankruptcy court approval of a sale that is not in the ordinary course of business and of any effort to transfer executory contracts, intellectual property licenses, or commercial real estate leases to the buyer.

The Sale Order. For a buyer of assets in a Section 363 bankruptcy sale, a big question is what type of factual findings and legal rulings will the bankruptcy court include — or refuse to include — in the order approving the sale. Buyers typically desire that the sale be ordered "free and clear" of all liens, claims, interests, and encumbrances, rather than only certain ones specifically identified in the notice of the sale motion. They also prefer to have findings added to the order on issues such as fair value paid and no successor liability, and often ask for an injunction against actions affecting the buyer that are inconsistent with the sale order’s findings and provisions.

Big Differences From District To District. As bankruptcy lawyers know, courts in different districts around the country have taken surprisingly divergent views on what is, and is not, appropriate in Section 363 sale orders.

  • It’s hard not to notice the striking differences between the new Model Sale Order from the Northern District of California and examples of sale orders entered over the past few years by bankruptcy courts in the District of Delaware (example here), the Southern District of New York (example here), and the Northern District of Illinois (example here), three courts where a number of large Chapter 11 cases have been filed. 
  • The new Guidelines issued by the Northern District of California appear to be in reaction to the submission of sale orders more in keeping with the accepted practice in Delaware and New York than in Northern California.

Although one wonders if the Northern District of California’s approach will spread to other courts, the more likely scenario is that each district will continue to follow its own path.

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

Section 363 Sales: Interesting Article Takes A Further Look

David Powlen, Managing Director and Partner at Western Reserve Partners LLC, has an interesting article on the Turnaround Management Association website entitled "Bargains Await Buyers Skilled At Navigating Section 363 Minefields." It gives a good overview of the range of issues that arise in the context of a sale under Bankruptcy Code Section 363. Among the article’s observations:

  • Unlike traditional private company M&A deals, Section 363 sales take place in the "fishbowl" of a bankruptcy proceeding;
  • Although the bankruptcy process generally leads the debtor to seek an auction, some typical M&A bidders may not participate in a bankruptcy sale, potentially reducing the competition to a stalking horse bidder;
  • Compensating for the usual lack of representations and warranties in an asset purchase agreement with a bankrupt company is the court’s sale approval order, which generally approves a sale free and clear of liens, claims, and interests; and
  • A Section 363 sale may not be free of every claim or interest, however, as certain environmental and product liability claims may nevertheless pass to the buyer. 

The article also includes a helpful chart giving a graphic presentation of the relative risks and benefits of an out-of-court sale, a Section 363 sale, and the less common sale through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. For more on these issues, you may also be interested in this earlier post and linked article on buying assets from a financially distressed company.

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.