Search

Last month, we discussed <i>Sherwood Partners, Inc., Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of International Thinklink Corporation v. Lycos, Inc.</i>, 394 Fed11198 (9th Cir. 2005). In that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a divided court, held that a state statute authorizing an assignee for the benefit of creditors to void a preferential transfer is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code. This month, we discuss the ruling in depth.

In the race between a debtor and a third party to recover the proceeds of a directors' and officers' insurance policy (a "D&amp;O Policy"), it is critical that the debtor employ the correct strategy for the applicable jurisdiction in order to enjoin its competitor from reaching the proceeds first. Choosing the wrong strategy could mean the difference between collecting tens of millions of dollars and obtaining a judgment not worth the paper upon which it is written. Indeed, the proceeds of the D&amp;O Policy ("D&amp;O Proceeds") may be the largest asset of the estate. As a result, a successful reorganization could depend upon filing in the right jurisdiction and implementing the correct litigation strategy.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

On April 15, 2005, one of the largest not-for-profit bankruptcy cases ever filed, <i>In re: The National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) et al.</i>, (Bankr. W.D. Texas), Case No. 04-50948 (RBK), came to an extraordinary conclusion when the joint plan of reorganization of the Debtors and the Unsecured Creditors' Committee became effective. Under the Plan, all of the Debtors' creditors were paid the full amount of their pre-petition principal and interest, plus a stipulated amount of post-petition interest, together with reimbursement of the full amount of their pre- and post-petition legal fees. After paying their creditors in full on the effective date, the Debtors, a separately constituted arm of the Disciples of Christ Church, retained certain of their assets and will continue their charitable mission. This unusual outcome, in which creditors were paid in full and the Debtors continued certain of their operations, marked the end of a process that began with the Debtors' unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a substantial write-down of their debts outside bankruptcy, was followed by a year-long bankruptcy case in which the Debtors argued that their charitable status and mission should take priority over their bankruptcy law duty to maximize creditor recovery, and was finally resolved when the Debtors were compelled to sell the bulk of their real estate assets in order to fund full payment to creditors.

Last month, we explained that the proposition that a creditor can do whatever it wants with its recovery from a Chapter 11 debtor may seem to be a fundamental right -- but that in the context of confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan, that right may not be unqualified. It may, in fact, violate well-established bankruptcy principles. We went on to explain that one such principle that applies only in the context of non-consensual confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan, or "cramdown," is commonly referred to as the "absolute priority rule," a pre-Bankruptcy Code maxim that established a strict hierarchy of payment among claims of differing priorities.

In <i>Sherwood Partners, Inc., Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of International Thinklink Corporation v. Lycos, Inc.</i>, 394 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a divided court, recently held that a state statute authorizing an assignee for the benefit of creditors to void a preferential transfer is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Among the more arduous tasks for an attorney handling a matrimonial case is the negotiation of the financial aspects, primarily support and maintenance and the division and distribution of marital property. In many cases, exhaustive financial disclosure is necessary; evaluations of property are obtained and challenged, and months of negotiations and legal services result, finally, in a resolution of the financial issues.

Restructuring professionals must be acutely aware of potential conflicts of interest. Indeed, federal courts on occasion have disqualified a professional or ordered the disgorgement of the professional's fees in situations where that professional failed to properly disclose a conflict of interest. The importance of conflicts of interest is especially evident in today's global economy, in which restructuring matters routinely involve many of the same parties.

Companies in Chapter 11 may have capital structures consisting of multiple tiers of debt and equity that have competing priorities of payment vis-'-vis the company and its assets. The claims and interests of these competing stakeholders may be resolved in a Chapter 11 plan. To emerge from Chapter 11, the company must obtain approval of a plan that deals with all creditor claims and equity interests in accordance with the (sometimes complicated) rules contained in the Bankruptcy Code. In an effort to achieve an agreed-upon Chapter 11 plan, some creditors may give up (or gift) a portion of the recovery to which they would otherwise be entitled to another class of creditors or equity holders.