Source: http://blogs.harvard.edu/bankruptcyroundtable/author/plenertz/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 15:09:35+00:00

Document:
As more Companies face liquidity issues and near term debt maturities, they are looking closely to exceptions contained within their indenture/credit agreement covenants in order to achieve an overall or partial restructuring of their capital structure. Investments in “Unrestricted Subsidiaries” are an exception to investment covenants, which have been used in an attempt to provide flexibility in restructuring a Company’s capital structure. Before purchasing debt, distressed investors need to be mindful of what Unrestricted Subsidiaries are and how they impact the overall credit of a Company or debt recovery.
Companies may use Unrestricted Subsidiaries in order to transfer a valuable asset outside of the purview of a Financing Agreement’s covenants. A Company can use the Unrestricted Subsidiary to exchange near term maturing debt junior in the Company’s capital structure for debt issued by the Unrestricted Subsidiary – an exchange that would otherwise not be permitted by the covenants. The exchanged indebtedness could then be supported by the asset which has been transferred to the Unrestricted Subsidiary.
Two recent and well publicized examples of moving value into an Unrestricted Subsidiary are iHeartCommunications (“iHeart”) and J.Crew Group, Inc. (“J.Crew”). In iHeart, the stock of an iHeart subsidiary was moved to an Unrestricted Subsidiary in order to effect a debt exchange, while in J.Crew valuable intellectual property was moved into an Unrestricted Subsidiary for likely the same purpose. Investors must be prepared to determine if there is a way for a Company to utilize its covenants to transfer value to an Unrestricted Subsidiary.
In November 2016, the Third Circuit rendered a decision in Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co., LLC, finding that the defendants, who voluntarily filed for bankruptcy, were still obligated to pay over $800M in expected interest owed to lenders. The case stemmed from the defendants’ attempt to refinance, during bankruptcy, certain first lien and second lien notes in the wake of declining interest rates. The defendants filed for bankruptcy to render the notes immediately due and payable pursuant to the indentures’ acceleration provision. The defendants assumed acceleration would allow them to avoid the “make-whole” obligation to noteholders that otherwise would be due upon an optional redemption (i.e., the net present value of future payments not yet accrued at the time of prepayment).
In holding that the defendants’ actions effectively constituted an “optional redemption” triggering their obligation to pay future interest to noteholders under the make-whole provision, the Third Circuit clarified the often-muddy interplay between indenture acceleration provisions and “make-whole” redemption provisions. Specifically, the Third Circuit held that: (1) an acceleration provision that is silent as to “make-whole” does not annul a make-whole provision; (2) in order to sever “make-whole” obligations, acceleration provisions must specifically reference “make-whole” obligations; (3) “redemption” does not equal “prepayment;” and (4) issuers have the burden to insist on clear language if they intend to sever make-whole obligations through acceleration.
In an unpublished opinion in August, In re Province Grande Old Liberty, LLC, Case No. 15-1669, 2016 WL 4254917 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals shed some light on the circumstances under which a court may recharacterize debt as an equity investment, effectively subordinating the claim. The issue before the Fourth Circuit was not one of first impression — the Fourth Circuit had long recognized that a bankruptcy court’s equitable powers include “the ability to look beyond form to substance,” and had previously articulated the factors to consider in evaluating a request for recharacterization. See Fairchild Dornier GMBH v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for Dornier Aviation (North America), Inc.), 453 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2006). The Fourth Circuit decision is notable however, because the court looked beyond the facts giving rise to the underlying claim at issue and ultimately to the economic substance of the entire context of the transaction. In Province, the creditor whose claim was at issue was a company owned by insiders of the debtor. The creditors’ claim was based on a loan that was used by the debtor to settle other obligations. The court held that the settlement agreement was the “substance of the transaction” and a basis for recharacterization, notwithstanding the fact that the creditor was not a party to the settlement agreement.
The Seventh Circuit held last July in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 2016 BL 243677 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016), that § 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a safe harbor for “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions.” This decision deepens a circuit split on this issue. While the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held that the plain language of § 546(e) protects transfers through financial institutions as settlement payments, the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation agrees with the Eleventh Circuit’s older decision in In re Munford, 98 F.3d 604, 610 (11th Cir. 1996). The legislative purpose of § 546(e) was to prevent the insolvency of one financial institution from causing systemic harm to the market as a whole. However, its text also has deep implications for leveraged buyouts that might render target corporations insolvent because payments to selling shareholders almost invariably pass through brokers and clearinghouses that are covered by the safe harbor.
Several law firms have now written memos on the FTI decision. Schiff Harden postulates that debtors will be more likely to forum shop when filing for bankruptcy when they have recently undergone a leveraged buyout. Jones Day makes clear that shareholders selling into a leveraged buyout face differing levels of risk depending on which forums the corporation could legally avail itself of in a bankruptcy proceeding. And Dechert argues that FTI Consulting will result in different treatment for parties selling identical securities in leveraged buyouts: financial institutions, stockbrokers, and the like will remain protected by the safe harbor when they are beneficial owners of stock, but other shareholders will be subject to avoidance action.
Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana considered whether a bankruptcy termination provision in a forward contract continues to be safe harbored under section 556 if its enforcement is conditioned on other factors – in this case, the debtor’s failure to perform under the contract. Consistent with prior case law, the court held that termination is only safe harbored if it is based solely on a condition specified in 365(e)(1) (i.e., the financial condition of the debtor, bankruptcy, or the appointment of a trustee).
The contract in Louisiana Pellets contained a standard ipso facto provision that permitted either party to terminate the agreement upon commencement of a bankruptcy case by the other party. But the debtor’s counterparty could only invoke the provision if the debtor was also in breach of its obligations under the agreement. The counterparty alleged that both requirements of the ipso facto provision – bankruptcy and breach – had been satisfied, and sought to terminate.
The court held that because the ipso facto provision contained an additional condition to enforcement (the debtor’s breach), it no longer fell within the 556 safe harbor. Thus, even if both conditions were satisfied (bankruptcy and breach), the automatic stay applied and the termination clause could not be exercised absent relief from the automatic stay.
The lesson of Louisiana Pellets is that ipso facto provisions in financial contracts should be drafted carefully so that their enforcement depends solely on one of the conditions specified in Section 365(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Sales of a debtor’s assets pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code carry significant benefits for buyers and sellers alike. But pursuing a sale process with the overlay of the Bankruptcy Code can also pose challenges and pitfalls, particularly for participants who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of the bankruptcy process and the applicable statutes, rules, and procedures inherent in 363 sales.
Jacqueline Marcus, a partner with Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, and Doron Kenter, Counsel with Robins Kaplan LLP, recently authored an article for Practical Law Bankruptcy, in which they outline the relative advantages and disadvantages of sales in bankruptcy, from both the buyer’s and the seller’s perspective, and offer a practical guide to participating in section 363 sales. The article discusses the various types of section 363 sales, as well as the forms of sale processes that debtors may choose to employ in selling some or substantially all of their assets. The article discusses the benefits and drawbacks of finding, or being, a stalking horse bidder, and provides guidance for the marketing process, credit bidding, conducting auctions, and choosing a winning bid. It then discusses the competing views regarding the circumstances under which the bankruptcy court may call the debtor’s decision into question or reopen an auction that has otherwise been closed. Finally, the article discusses the considerations that should be taken into account in determining an exit strategy after a debtor completes a sale of substantially all of its assets.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 546
 § 546
 § 546