Chapter 11

Showing: 22 - 28 of 127 Articles
Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Winter 2014 Edition Of Bankruptcy Resource Now Available

I hope you had a wonderful holiday season and Happy New Year everyone.

To start the new year off, the Winter 2014 edition of the Absolute Priority newsletter, published by the Bankruptcy & Restructuring group at Cooley LLP, of which I am a member, has 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. 

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

  • An Eleventh Circuit ruling that indirect benefits from a Subchapter S election can constitute reasonably equivalent value for fraudulent transfer purposes;
  • The Ninth Circuit’s decision permitting recharacterization claims; and
  • A recent Seventh Circuit decision on the validity of a cross-collateralized real estate lien.

It also reports on some of our recent representations, including for official committees of unsecured creditors in Chapter 11 cases involving major retailers and others, and our work for Chapter 11 debtors. Recent committee cases include Mervyn’s Holdings, Appleseed’s Intermediate Holdings, and Underground Energy, among others. Recent debtor representations include Cylex (now Immunology Partners), IntraOp Medical (now MC Liquidation), and Nirvanix.

I hope you find the latest edition of Absolute Priority to be of interest. Please note that this will be the final issue in newsletter format, as soon our group will be providing future insights through a new Absolute Priority blog, in addition to this In The (Red) blog. Stay tuned for more details. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Innovation Act, Passed By The House, Would Make Major Changes To Section 365(n)’s IP Licensee Protections

It isn’t law yet, but on December 5, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a significant patent reform bill known as the "Innovation Act." Although the focus of the legislation is on patent infringement litigation and other patent law revisions, the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, would also make major changes to Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. Follow the link in the prior sentence for a copy of the Innovation Act in the form passed by the House and received in the Senate last week. It would also address the interplay between Section 365(n) and Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy cases, the subject of my last post, on the Qimonda AG decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Licensee Protections Under The Current Version Of Section 365(n). Section 365(n) was added to the Bankruptcy Code in 1988 to protect licensees of intellectual property in the event the licensor files bankruptcy.

  • Under Section 365(n) as it now exists, if a debtor or trustee rejects a license, the licensee can elect to retain its rights to the licensed intellectual property, including a right to enforce an exclusivity provision.
  • In return, the licensee must continue to make any required royalty payments.
  • The licensee also can retain rights under any agreement supplementary to the license, which should include source code or other forms of technology escrow agreements.
  • Taken together, these provisions protect a licensee from being stripped of its rights to continue to use the licensed intellectual property.
  • To read more about the current version of Section 365(n)’s benefits and its protections, follow the link in this sentence.

Limits Of The Current Section 365(n). These existing protections have several significant limitations. First, the Bankruptcy Code’s special definition of "intellectual property" excludes trademarks from the scope of Section 365(n)’s protections (although a recent Seventh Circuit decision may have opened an alternative path for trademark licensees to retain their rights). Another is that Section 365(n) is in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and applies only in a U.S. bankruptcy case. Most other countries do not have protections similar to Section 365(n).

Proposed Changes In The House-Passed Innovation Act. The Innovation Act would make four major changes to Section 365(n)’s protections for licensees.

  • First, it would extend Section 365(n)’s protections, including through an amendment to Section 101(35A) of the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of intellectual property, to licenses of trademarks, service marks, and trade names.
  • Second, rejection of a trademark, service mark, or trade name license would not relieve the trustee (or presumably a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 case) of the debtor’s contractual obligations to monitor and control the quality of a licensed product or service.
  • Third, it would expand the payments that a licensee would have to continue to make to the estate, if it elected to retain its license rights, to include not only "royalty" payments but also "other" payments under the license.
  • Fourth, it would amend Section 1522 of the Bankruptcy Code to make Section 365(n) directly applicable to Chapter 15 cases, providing that if a foreign representative rejects or repudiates an IP license, the licensee would be entitled to elect to retain its IP rights under Section 365(n).

If enacted and signed by the President, the Innovation Act’s revisions would apply as of the date of enactment to pending and future cases.

Will The Innovation Act Become Law? I’m a bankruptcy lawyer, not a political analyst, but it’s fair to say we shouldn’t get too excited about these potential legislative changes just yet. The Innovation Act has passed only the House and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where the bill meets an uncertain fate. Even if the Innovation Act passes the Senate, the Section 365(n) provisions could be amended or the legislation could otherwise stall. However, the Innovation Act is not a one-party bill: it passed the House with a large bipartisan majority on a 325-91 vote. That suggests it has the potential for support in the Senate.

Potential Impact Of Innovation Act’s Changes To Section 365(n). If the changes to Section 365(n) do become law, they would be the most significant revisions since its enactment in 1988.

  • The biggest changes would be the extension of Section 365(n)’s protections to trademarks, service marks, and trade names, together with the monitoring obligations on a trustee. In the 25 years since Section 365(n) was enacted, trademark licensees have lived under the specter of losing trademark license rights in bankruptcy. These revisions would be a sea change in the trademark area.
  • In addition, the Innovation Act provides that the trustee or debtor in possession would not be relieved of a contractual obligation to continue to monitor the quality of goods or services using a mark, in effect limiting the benefits of rejection to an estate for the protection of consumers. However, it’s unclear how a trustee would be able to meet such an obligation, particularly if an estate had no assets, and how a trustee could meet a long-term obligation to monitor quality given that the Chapter 7 case would eventually be closed. These were some of the difficult issues that led Congress to leave trademarks out of Section 365(n) originally.
  • Another significant change is the requirement that a licensee that elects to retain its IP rights under Section 365(n) essentially continue to make all payments under the license agreement and not simply those determined to be "royalty" payments. If this provision becomes law, drafters of license agreements will need to consider how rejection and the non-performance of the licensor’s obligations would impact payments otherwise required under the license agreement.
  • As a timely anticipation of the Fourth Circuit’s Qimonda AG decision, the Innovation Act would apply Section 365(n) in all Chapter 15 cases through an amendment to Section 1522. The language used — applying when a foreign representative rejects or "repudiates" a license agreement — suggests that the House intended this to cover not only rejection under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code but also equivalent foreign law powers to repudiate or disclaim contracts. By placing the Section 365(n) reference in a new, separate subsection of Section 1522 governing protection of creditors and other interested persons, it seems that Section 365(n) would apply in all Chapter 15 cases, regardless of whether the foreign representative sought preliminary or discretionary relief under Sections 1519 or 1521.

Conclusion. If it becomes law in its current form, the Innovation Act would bring the most sweeping changes to Section 365(n) since its enactment in 1988. Although there’s a long way to go before that actually happens, the breadth of the proposed changes and their impact on bankruptcy and IP law makes this piece of legislation one to watch. Stay tuned.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Amendments To The Federal Bankruptcy Rules, Plus A New “Free And Clear” Sale Motion Filing Fee, To Take Effect December 1, 2013

Almost every year, changes are made to the set of rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The changes address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others.

Rule Amendments. This year the rule amendments mainly affect bankruptcy cases filed by individuals. There are also some revisions to Rules 9006, 9013, and 9014, which govern motions in individual and business bankruptcy cases, but they are minor and not too exciting this time. So you can keep up-to-date, a copy of the amendments, in both clean and redline, is available by following the link in this sentence. The new amendments will take effect on December 1, 2013, barring unlikely action by Congress.

"Free And Clear" Motion Filing Fee. Also taking effect on December 1, 2013, is a new, $176 filing fee each time a motion is filed under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code to sell assets "free and clear" of liens, interests and other encumbrances. Given the frequent use of Section 363 asset sales in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, this new fee may well generate some much needed revenue for the courts.

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

DIP Financing: How Chapter 11’s Bankruptcy Loan Rules Can Be Used To Help A Business Access Liquidity

Cash Is King. An army may march on its stomach, but for companies, it’s liquidity that keeps the business going. For many companies, typical sources of liquidity, beyond cash flow from sales or other revenue, are (1) financing from banks or other secured lenders, (2) credit from vendors that can reduce immediate liquidity needs, and (3) when needed, loans from owners, investors, or other insiders.

When A Liquidity Crisis Hits. Companies in financial distress often find that their need for liquidity goes up just as the availability of traditional financing goes down. The borrowing base may shrink, the ability to get further advances may be cut off, and loans may go into default. Worse, new lenders may be unwilling to make loans given the distress. For many distressed businesses, revenues may also be declining and insufficient to cover expenses without additional financing. A liquidity crunch can quickly snowball into a liquidity crisis.

Insider Loans. Even if an owner, investor, or other insider might be open to making a loan, the company’s distress may raise a red flag because of the extra scrutiny often given to insider loans to a distressed company. Insiders may be concerned that if they make the loan, creditors or a bankruptcy trustee could later challenge it (and any security interest granted) in an attempt to recharacterize the loan as an equity contribution or have the debt equitably subordinated — and therefore never repaid — in a bankruptcy. 

A Potential Solution: DIP Financing. A company in financial distress is probably already looking at a workout, restructuring, or sale of the business. Out-of-court workouts should be considered and may succeed. However, in the right situation a Chapter 11 bankruptcy can provide powerful options, including the ability to facilitate financing. If a company needs a loan but a potential lender is unwilling to make it, including because of concern about a legal challenge, the Bankruptcy Code offers a way to give the lender comfort that the loan will not be challenged, even if the lender is an insider or a potential purchaser.

  • To explore this further, we first need to review a little bankruptcy terminology. When a company files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company’s management and board of directors remain in possession of its business (unless a trustee is later appointed). For that reason, the company in Chapter 11 is called a "debtor in possession" or a "DIP" for short. The special Chapter 11 bankruptcy financing is known by this acronym: DIP financing.
  • When the debtor company has lined up a lender, it files a motion seeking Bankruptcy Court approval of the DIP financing. Typical DIP financing terms include a first priority security interest, a market or even premium interest rate, an approved budget, and other lender protections. Creditors have a right to object to the DIP loan, and may do so if the proposed lender is an insider, and the Bankruptcy Court will ultimately decide whether to approve it.
  • If the company already has secured debt, to borrow funds secured by a lien equal or senior to the existing lender (often called "priming" the existing lender), the company either will need the existing lender to consent or will have to convince the Bankruptcy Court that the existing lender’s lien position will be "adequately protected" (essentially meaning that the existing lender will not be worse off if the DIP loan is approved).
  • An existing lender itself may be willing to make a DIP loan, even if it has refused to make further advances outside of bankruptcy. In fact, when DIP loans are made they often come from a company’s existing lender. That lender may have its own reasons to use the DIP financing process, for instance, to finance a sale process on specific timelines or otherwise to enhance its position.
  • Unlike a loan outside of bankruptcy, if the Bankruptcy Court gives final approval to a DIP loan and finds that the loan was made in good faith, the new DIP loan will no longer be subject to legal challenge. Put differently, with that approval in hand, a loan that could have been challenged outside of bankruptcy will not be subject to challenge inside of bankruptcy. That’s true even if the lender is an insider or a "stalking horse purchaser" seeking to buy the company’s assets. 
  • The takeaway is that while it isn’t easy, in the right case a distressed company may be able to use Chapter 11 bankruptcy’s DIP financing procedures to get the liquidity it needs, to run a sale process or finance a formal Chapter 11 restructuring, even if it could not get a new loan outside of bankruptcy.

Why Chapter 11? One of the key reasons companies file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is because of the special legal protections it provides. For the company, those include the automatic stay and, in the right case, the ability to restructure its debts through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. Chapter 11’s protections for purchasers of assets can sometimes allow the seller to achieve through Chapter 11 a sale price that it never could have realized without bankruptcy. Likewise, Chapter 11’s DIP financing process for lenders may help the company generate liquidity — including from an existing lender, investor, or stalking horse purchaser — even if it could not do so outside of bankruptcy. 

Conclusion.  A company facing a liquidity crisis should get legal advice from an experienced restructuring and bankruptcy attorney to make sure it considers all options. A workout or other out-of-court restructuring may be able to solve the problem and get the business back on track. However, there are times when a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, despite its costs and disruptions, is the best tool in the toolkit. That’s especially true if Chapter 11’s DIP financing rules help a business access liquidity that it could not get outside of bankruptcy.

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

The Privilege Is All Mine: What Happens To A Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privilege In Bankruptcy?

It’s well-established that a corporation has an attorney-client privilege and can assert it to keep communications between the corporation and its attorneys confidential. When a corporation is solvent, its officers and directors maintain the right to assert — or waive — the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the corporation, and control who has access to privileged communications.

The Attorney-Client Privilege In Bankruptcy. This raises a question: what happens if the corporation files bankruptcy? The answer depends on the type of bankruptcy filed and whether a bankruptcy trustee is appointed.

  • Chapter 11 Case. In a Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy, the corporation generally remains as a "debtor in possession," unless a trustee is appointed. As a debtor in possession, the corporation’s board of directors and management remain in control — literally "in possession" — of the company’s assets. Courts have held that this control extends to the continued right to assert, or waive, the corporation’s attorney-client privilege.
  • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. In a Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy, a Chapter 7 trustee is appointed and the debtor corporation’s board and management is removed from control. The U.S. Supreme Court held in CFTC v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 373 (1985), that it’s the Chapter 7 trustee alone who controls the ability to assert, or waive, the corporation’s attorney-client privilege. This means that the Chapter 7 trustee is given access to all of the corporation’s attorney-client privileged communications prior to bankruptcy.
  • Chapter 11 Trustee. The answer is less clear in the relatively few Chapter 11 cases in which the court appoints a Chapter 11 trustee. Several courts, however, have extended the Supreme Court’s decision in Weintraub and held that the appointed Chapter 11 trustee, like a Chapter 7 trustee, takes control of the debtor’s assets and therefore has authority to assert or waive the corporation’s attorney-client privilege and to access privileged communications.

Access To Attorney-Client Privileged Communications. It’s important for officers, directors, and attorneys for corporations to remember that the attorney-client privilege belongs to the corporation. Anyone who later gains control of the corporation will have access to its attorney-client privileged communications.

  • While nothing new, for solvent companies this means that, for example, future officers and directors will have access to attorney-client communications that took place in the past between corporate counsel and former officers and directors. The same is true when a corporation is acquired through a merger; the new ownership and management takes control of the corporation — and also of its past and present attorney-client privileged communications.
  • Likewise, when a corporation files bankruptcy, a bankruptcy trustee, certainly a Chapter 7  trustee and probably a Chapter 11 trustee, will be given similar access to the corporation’s attorney-client communications. This is true even if the trustee wants access to use previously privileged communications, as they sometimes will do, to bring causes of action against former officers and directors or others.

Conclusion. The attorney-client privilege is an essential part of the attorney-client relationship, fostering the ability of a corporation to get the full benefit of its counsel’s legal advice. While not always obvious, the privilege is held by the corporation, not specific officers or directors. Companies that file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and remain as a debtor in possession generally do not turn over the corporation’s attorney-client privilege to a third party. However, if the corporation files or ends up in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, or perhaps has a Chapter 11 trustee appointed, control of the corporation, and its attorney-client privileged communications, may well end up in the hands of the bankruptcy trustee. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Video Of Testimony Before ABI Commission To Study Reform Of Chapter 11

As mentioned in a recent blog post, the American Bankruptcy Institute has established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11. A video of testimony before the Commission’s June 4, 2013 field hearing in New York is available below.

  • At that hearing, I testified on the second panel, discussing intellectual property licenses, their treatment in bankruptcy cases, and potential reforms to address several key issues. My testimony begins at the 01:14:14 mark.
  • Lawrence Gottlieb, my colleague at Cooley LLP in our Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy group, testified as part of the first panel, focusing on real property lease issues, how they impact Chapter 11 cases (especially those involving retailers), and suggested reforms. His testimony begins at the 00:08:12 mark.

More information on the Commission and its work, together with access to the video and written testimony of all panelists at the Commission’s hearings, is available at the Commission’s website.

 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

ABI Commission To Study The Reform Of Chapter 11

The American Bankruptcy Institute has established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11.

  • This afternoon, June 4, 2013, I will be testifying before the Commission about intellectual property licenses, their treatment in bankruptcy cases, and potential reforms to address several key issues. 
  • Lawrence Gottlieb, my colleague at Cooley LLP in our Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy group, will also be testifying before the Commission today, focusing on real property lease issues, how they impact Chapter 11 cases (especially those involving retailers), and suggested reforms.

More information on the Commission and its work, together with access to the testimony of all panelists at the Commission’s hearings, is available at the Commission’s website.

A copy of my testimony is also available by following the link in this sentence.