Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As widely reported, the downfall of Sears was a slow-motion train wreck. The company had lost $10 billion since 2012 and closed 700 stores in the last two years. The Sears Chapter 11 sales process involved a complicated auction structure designed to sell several different types of assets including stand-alone businesses, and real estate. Despite its unique size and complexity, however, some of the strategies and techniques used by the stakeholders in Sears can be applied in cases of any size.
For several years prior to the Chapter 11 filing, Sears engaged in a series of “financial engineering” moves including stock buy-backs, spin-offs of assets such as the “Land's End” brand, and transfers of substantial amounts of real estate to Seritage Growth Properties, a REIT. Throughout that time period, Eddie Lampert, through his fund ESL Investments, Inc. and other affiliates (collectively, ESL) extended secured credit to Sears and when the bankruptcy case was finally filed, ESL held claims exceeding $6 billion.
After the Chapter 11 filing by Sears, ESL made the only “going concern” bid for the assets, which would keep 450 Sears stores operating and preserve thousands of jobs. The bid, which included a cash component and a credit bid of approximately $5.3 billion, was based upon ESL's secured claims. The secured claims were the subject of a potential objection by the unsecured creditors' committee (UCC), but more on that later. The only other bid for the same assets was an untenable liquidation bid made by a group of liquidators.
Ultimately, no other bidder emerged, and the auction turned into a three-day, round-the- clock negotiation between Sears, ESL and the UCC. The points of contention included: 1) whether immediate liquidation was in the best interests of creditors; 2) how to value the ESL credit bid when the underlying secured claims were subject to an objection, and 3) whether ESL should pay for some of the administrative costs and priority claims of the Chapter 11 case during the negotiation process, and as part of its going concern bid?
It's not surprising that no other “going concern” bid was made, given the deteriorated state of the business, ESL's enormous credit bid, and the relatively short time period allocated for the sale process. Consequently, there was no competitive auction and the sale to ESL was a forgone conclusion from the start; the only question was the price and the extent of the releases. Obviously, there were never going to be many bidders willing to take on 450 money-losing Sears stores and bid against a billionaire with a $5 billion credit bid in hand.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.