Yesterday's 2nd Circuit opinion reconfirming Purdue Pharma's settlement/restructuring plan is an enlightening read for those interested in third-party releases. In what seems to me (and the concurrence) a bit of a reach, the 2nd Circuit conceded that statutory authority more specific than section 105 was needed to support third-party releases, but the Court found such support in section 1123(b)(6): “a plan may . . . include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title.” Hmmm. That's quite a slender reed on which to balance such a powerful action. More interesting, the Court set forth a series of seven tests to gauge whether any given third-party release is appropriate. One key test is rather vague (whether the plan provides for the fair payment of enjoined claims), but at least we now have a roadmap for getting to an effective third-party release. Or do we? The Court in a crucial passage emphasizes "to the extent that there is a fear that this opinion could be read as a blueprint for how individuals can obtain third-party releases in the face of a tsunami of litigation, we caution that the key fact regarding the indemnity agreements at issue is that they were entered into by the end of 2004—well before the contemplation of bankruptcy." So the type of pre-bankruptcy planning we've seen in other cases may be a bridge too far, at least in the 2nd Circuit. This latest opinion seems to add weight to recent arguments that bankruptcy court is, indeed, an appropriate and effective venue for resolving sticky mass-tort issues, though the policy debate will doubtless continue.

When I was a law student the rule I learned about secured claims was that they accrue post-petition interest and attorneys' fees (if provided for by contract or statute) up to the amount of the value of the collateral that exceeds their claims, but then nothing further once they are fully secured.  That was an easy enough rule to apply.

But then the Supreme Court's ruled in Travelers v. PG&E (2007) that the standard basis for disallowing the excess attorneys' fees—the Fobian rule—was no longer valid. SCOTUS expressly left open the possibility of other arguments for limiting attorneys' fees, but none have been successful in the courts of appeals so far. 

So this brings up a question:  If post-petition interest is capped by the collateral cushion, but post-petition attorneys' fees are not so capped and can therefore spillover into an unsecured claim, what is the order in which the collateral cushion is applied?  That is, what is the correct order of operations?  Is the collateral cushion applied first to post-petition interest and then to attorneys' fees or vice-versa or are they applied as they accrue? 

I'm curious for readers' thoughts on the right answer to this problem, or at least how it is handled in practice.  I'm also curious for thoughts on why the issue hasn't arisen in any reported decision. The problem seems akin to that of how adequate protection payments are applied to reduce a claim and collateral value, where there is a little bit of caselaw.  

[Updated 4.12.23 to reflect the transcript of the first day hearing with much more detailed analysis of LTL's arguments regarding fraudulent transfer allegations.]

Today was the first day hearing for LTL 2.0. An ad hoc committee of talc claimants (most of the members of the Official Committee from LTL 1.0) weighed in with an informational brief that blasted the bankruptcy filing as being in bad faith and premised on what is, without hyperbole, the largest fraudulent transfer in history, weighing in a jaw-dropping $52.6 billion.

(more…)

This post is a joint post by Hon. Judith K. Fitzgerald (ret.)[*] and Adam Levitin

Here we go again. Precisely one hour and thirty-nine minutes after the dismissal of the bankruptcy filing of LTL, Johnson & Johnson’s artificially created talc-liability subsidiary, the company was right back at it again with the filing of a new chapter 11 case in New Jersey, again assigned to Judge Kaplan.

It took some fast work from our friends at Jones Day to get a second complex chapter 11 case out the door, albeit without any schedules! With the filing came, inter alia, a declaration, a statement by the Debtor regarding its second filing, and a new Adversary Proceeding that seeks the same preliminary injunctive relief for the benefit of some 700 J&J affiliates and favored customers that was achieved in the first LTL case.

The new case is supposedly engineered to comply with the strictures of the Third Circuit’s decision dismissing the original filing for not being in good faith on account of the debtor not being in financial distress. To recall, LTL found itself hoist on its own petard before the Third Circuit, which noted that its assets included a $62 billion funding agreement, vitiating any claim of financial distress.

To this end, what has changed in LTL 2.0 is the design of the funding agreement. The funding agreement in LTL 1.0 was for up to $62 billion, and the funding was to come from both LTL’s HoldCo (New JJCI) and J&J. Now in LTL 2.0, the funding agreement is just from HoldCo, and it is for only $8.9 billion. There is a proposed backstop from J&J, but that will require bankruptcy court approval, so LTL claims that it is not part of the good faith analysis. LTL’s thinking is that Judge Kaplan previously found that the HoldCo (or at least its predecessor) was in financial distress, so it must be so now, particularly because in January of this year it transferred most of its assets—the entire J&J consumer business!—to the J&J parent. The idea is that the new funding agreemen tisn’t really so valuable, so LTL must be in financial distress.

There are (at least) three flies in J&J's ointment.

(more…)

You gotta feel for BlockFi customers. First, they find themselves creditors in BlockFi's bankruptcy. And now they've found out that BlockFi had a large, uninsured deposit…at Silicon Valley Bank. Yup, it seems that BlockFi had $227 million in a money market deposit account at SVB. (The UST refers to it as a "money market mutual fund," but that cannot be right, or it wouldn't be at SVB or have any insurance. [See "Another update" below regarding possibility that it was a money market mutual fund sweep account, in which case the money would in fact be protected.]) That would mean there's a $226.75 million uninsured deposit. Given what we know about SVB, part of that $226.75 million in uninsured funds is likely lost if it's still at SVB.  

The US Trustee filed a motion today to force BlockFi to put the funds in insured accounts, but it sure looks as if the cow's out of the barn already. If the money's lost, then the question is who's going to pay for this screw up, and it's especially juicy because it's all tied up with venue competition. 

(more…)

This post is a joint post by Hon. Judith K. Fitzgerald (ret.)[*] and Adam Levitin

The Texas Two-Step has been the latest fad in mass tort bankruptcies, used, among others, by Johnson & Johnson, Georgia-Pacific, and, in a variation, 3M. The essential elements of the Texas Two-Step are the segregation of the debtor's mass tort liabilities in a non-operating subsidiary, which then enters into a funding agreement with the parent company to cover the mass tort liabilities up to some level. The subsidiary then files for bankruptcy and seeks to have the court stay the mass tort litigation against the non-debtor parent. If this maneuver is successful, the non-debtor parent goes about its normal business,[1] as do all of its creditors … other than the mass tort victims. Meanwhile, the non-operating debtor subsidiary—whose sole creditors are mass tort victims—just sits in bankruptcy indefinitely.

The basic strategy behind a Texas Two-Step is “delay to discount”: the extended delay of the bankruptcy process pressures tort victims and their counsel to accept discounted settlement offers. The non-debtor parent feels no urgency for the bankruptcy to end because litigation is stayed against it. Moreover, the parent is able to continue its normal operations without being subject to bankruptcy court oversight or even to the regular expenses of defending the mass tort litigation. And because the debtor is a non-operating entity, it is under no pressure to emerge from bankruptcy. The debtor and its parent are both happy to let the bankruptcy drag on as long as necessary. In other words, the Texas Two-Step is an underwater breath-holding contest where the debtor has a snorkel. 

The ultimate end-game in a Texas Two-Step bankruptcy, however, is obtaining releases for the non-debtor parent (and other affiliates), bolstered by a channeling injunction that precludes tort victims from bringing suit against the parent and affiliates after the bankruptcy. There’s a fly in the ointment, however. A channeling injunction under section 524(g) requires that the debtor receive a discharge, and the debtor entity in the traditional Texas Two-Step case is not eligible for a discharge because it is a non-operating corporate entity that will be liquidating.

(more…)

Judge Judith Fitzgerald (ret.) and I have a post about the Texas Two-Step bankruptcy process up at the Harvard Bankruptcy Law Blog, which has been running a series on the phenomenon.  And the Slips' own John A.E. Pottow has a capstone post on the same topic.    

The tl;dr read version of my post with Judge Fitzgerald is that the real fraudulent transfer vulnerability of the Texas Two-Step is the incurrence of an obligation by the BadCo in the divisive merger, not the transfer of assets to the GoodCo. Focusing on the the incurrence of an obligation not only avoids the problem of the Texas divisive merger statute deeming the merger not to be a transfer of assets (as there is a separate provision in the statute about liabilities that doesn't parallel the asset provision), but it also avoids the problem that there is no longer a transferor entity in existence.  If we're right (and we are), then it means that the liabilities follow normal state law successor liability principles, which should put the liability on GoodCo, which is continuing OldCo's enterprise.