Court: “You know, every piece of information and fact out there is within six degrees of separation of the debtors’ assets and financial affairs. The question is where do you draw the line?”

4/20/17 Transcript of hearing in In Re SunEdison, Inc., et al, Case No. 16-10992-smb (hereinafter “TR”), page 30 lines 6-11.

The Issue.  An issue of first impression appears to have arisen recently in a case pending before United States Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). In the Chapter 11 Case, In re: SunEdison Inc., et al., 16-10922 (SMB) (the “Debtors”), the Bankruptcy Court directed supplemental briefing on the question of whether a debtor is entitled to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery into non-debtor litigation, because the outcome of that litigation may have an effect on the value of a significant asset of the bankruptcy estate of the Debtor. At the hearing where the issue arose, the Bankruptcy Court noted that it had been unable to find a case directly on point, and at the hearing the parties to the matter were not able to identify any such cases.  Spoiler alert—as of the date this blog was prepared, the Bankruptcy Court had not yet ruled; an update will be provided when it does so. While we hold our breath waiting for the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, here is the background and where the six degrees of separation fit in (further spoiler alert: here, the six degrees of separation have nothing to do with Kevin Bacon).

Background: The debtor, SunEdison, Inc. (“SunE”) commenced its chapter 11 case on April 21, 2016, together with twenty-five affiliated co-debtor entities, with additional affiliated co-debtors thereafter filing voluntary petitions  (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”). The Chapter 11 Cases have been consolidated for procedural purposes only and are being jointly administered.  Notably absent from the Chapter 11 filings were two entities that are referred to in the Chapter 11 Cases as the non-debtor publicly traded “YieldCo” subsidiaries of SunE, TerraForm Power, Inc. (“TERP”), and TerraForm Global, Inc. (“GLBL,” and together with TERP, the “YieldCos”). According to SunE, SunE holds a majority equity stake in TERP and approximately 33% equity stake in GLBL.

In 2014, SunE and TERP, as buyers, had entered into a contract to purchase from D.E. Shaw Composite Holdings, L.L.C. (“DESCO”) and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners IV, L.P. (“MDP” and, together with DESCO, “Plaintiffs”) a company named First Wind, an energy company that owned and developed wind and solar energy. Thereafter a dispute arose and on April 3, 2016, prior to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against TERP seeking a declaratory judgment as to TERP’s obligations (the “First Wind Litigation”). The Debtors are not a party to that litigation.  Upon SunE declaring bankruptcy in April 2016, Plaintiffs asserted that an acceleration event had occurred, and Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in State Court asserting a claim for breach of contract for TERP’s failure to make what Plaintiffs assert is a $231 million in the aggregate “Accelerated Earnout Payment” as one of the two buyers under the purchase agreement, and for TERP’s failure to comply with its obligations as guarantor.

The Rule 2004 Motion and the Debtors’ Position.  In a motion filed jointly by the Debtors and TERP ( the “Rule 2004 Motion”), they sought the entry of an order of the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 seeking the production of documents by Plaintiffs and reserving the right to seek depositions[ Docket No. 2692].

According to the Debtors, on March 6, 2017, TERP and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. and its affiliates (“Brookfield”) entered into a definitive agreement under which Brookfield agreed to acquire a controlling interest in TERP (the “Brookfield Acquisition”), with SunE retaining a minority equity interest.  Pursuant to this transaction, the Debtors asserted that the Debtors’ estates stood to realize in excess of $800 million in cash and TERP equity and that, accordingly, the disposition of TERP is “critically important” to the formulation of a plan of reorganization of the Debtors, as well as to the proceeds available for distribution to secured and unsecured creditors of the estates.  Although the Brookfield Acquisition is not contingent upon resolution of Plaintiff’s claim against TERP, any liability with respect to these claims would, said the Debtors, reduce the value of the equity in TERP retained by SunE after the Brookfield Acquisition. The Debtors further contend that (a) uncertainty about the nature or magnitude of these claims could therefore complicate the financing and implementation of the Debtors’ plan of reorganization, which is premised, in part, on the value of the Debtors’ retained TERP equity; and, in addition, (b) the Brookfield Acquisition is subject to approval by TERP’s public stockholders, and the strength of Plaintiff’s claims against TERP may potentially be important to them.

The discovery is necessary, said the Debtors and TERP, so that SunE and TERP would be able to mitigate any concerns that SunE’s financing sources and TERP’s stockholders may have about the claims of Plaintiffs.  Also, contended Debtors and TERP, the discovery would demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims against TERP were not colorable, on the basis that the First Wind Action depended entirely on Plaintiff’s interpretation of an ambiguous clause of the 2014 purchase agreement that parol evidence would not support. According to the Debtors, without discovery, Plaintiffs would be in a position to interfere with the Brookfield Acquisition and its benefits to SunE and TERP stakeholders.

Plaintiffs’ Initial Objection.  In their initial objection to the Rule 2004 Motion, Plaintiffs argued that the Rule 2004 Motion should be denied as a flagrant violation of the “pending proceeding” rule prohibiting the use of Rule 2004 to obtain or circumvent discovery in pending litigation. There was, argued Plaintiffs, no uncertainty about the nature or magnitude of Plaintiffs’ claims as the 2004 Motion alleges, the claims for breach asserted in the First Wind Litigation were unambiguous, and TERP failed to take discovery in the First Wind Litigation in the State Court.  Furthermore, according to Plaintiffs, the requested Rule 2004 discovery should also be rejected as wholly unnecessary for plan confirmation in the bankruptcy or in support of the Brookfield Acquisition [Docket No. 2783].

While Plaintiffs acknowledged that generally under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 a Bankruptcy Court may, on a motion, “order the examination of any entity” into “the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor’s estate,” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a)-(b), it argued that even Rule 2004 examinations have limits.  As argued by Plaintiffs, under the “Pending Proceedings” limitation, parties are precluded from obtaining discovery through Bankruptcy Rule 2004 when proceedings are pending in another forum, and under those circumstances courts have held that discovery should be pursued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or equivalent procedures governing discovery in state court proceedings.

The Bankruptcy Court Hearing.   At the Bankruptcy Court hearing on the Rule 2004 Motion conducted on April 20, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court played devil’s advocate with both sides.  First, as to the Debtors, the Bankruptcy Court noted that in the Rule 2004 Motion, the Debtors did not really appear to seek discovery regarding the claims filed by the Plaintiffs in the Chapter 11 Cases, but, rather, the discovery was directed at non-debtor TERP’s liability to the Plaintiffs. On this point the Bankruptcy Court queried the Debtors’ counsel:

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. Suppose that a debtor’s most important customer is involved in litigation outside of bankruptcy, and if it loses that litigation, the customer’s going to go out of business. Would a debtor have the right to get discovery from the other party in that litigation regarding the strength of that claim? Because that’s really what you’re saying.

TR page 26, lines 11-17.

The Court pressed the point by asking Debtors’ Counsel:

THE COURT: Let’s suppose you’re an individual Chapter 11 debtor and your most significant asset is Microsoft stock. Microsoft is involved in a patent litigation in Seattle with some third party, and the outcome of that action would affect the value of your stock. Do you think you could….
insist in bankruptcy court through [Rule] 2004 that that adversary has to turn over information so you can gauge the strength of its patent claim?….

TR page 27, lines 23-25; page 281-2, 8-10.

Six Degrees of Separation.  After colloquy with Debtors’ counsel regarding the propriety of a 2004 examination in connection with third party litigation (litigation to which the debtor was not a party) on the basis that the outcome of that litigation could have an effect on the value of the debtor’s assets, with counsel for the Debtors pressing that the examination is appropriate because it concerns the Debtors assets,  the Bankruptcy Court made the statement quoted at the beginning of this article: “You know, every piece of information and fact out there is within six degrees of separation of the debtors’ assets and financial affairs. The question is where do you draw the line?”

The Bankruptcy Court likewise played devil’s advocate with Plaintiffs’ counsel and queried why couldn’t the Debtors take Rule 2004 discovery to determine the value of its interest in TERP and on why the transaction with TERP should be approved.

Bankruptcy Court’s Preliminary Ruling and Request for Supplemental Briefing. Ultimately, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Rule 2004 Motion as to TERP on the basis of the Pending Proceeding Rule.  As to the Debtors, however, after the Bankruptcy Court noted that it had looked for but had not found any cases on point, the Bankruptcy Court provided the parties with additional time to respond to the Bankruptcy Court’s questions.

The Debtors’ Supplemental Response. In the Debtors’ supplemental response (the supplemental responses were filed simultaneously), they asserted that the broad examination of third parties concerning the value of a debtor’s assets, or to aid in discovery of assets, is permitted under Rule 2004.  In support, the Debtors cited several cases that permitted such discovery, including with respect to the value of a debtor’s stock in several third parties, and the value of a debtor’s interest in real property.  The Debtors further asserted that Plaintiffs qualified as potential examinees under Rule 2004, citing this language from In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 156 B.R. 414, 432 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1993): “Because the purpose of the Rule 2004 examination is to aid in the discovery of assets, any third party who can be shown to have a relationship with the debtor can be made subject to a Rule 2004 investigation.” The Debtors also pointed out that the Plaintiffs were not just any third parties, as they had filed proofs of claim that were the subject of the First Wind Litigation, and therefore the First Wind Litigation was related to the Chapter 11 Cases [Docket No. 2901].

The Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Response.   In the Plaintiffs’ supplemental response, the Plaintiffs contend that Rule 2004 does not support the broad application that the Debtors urge the Bankruptcy Court to adopt, that to the extent courts have permitted Rule 2004 examinations of third parties, the purpose of such examinations was not to assess the potential outcome of a third party litigation, and allowing a Rule 2004 examination in connection with the Third Wind Litigation would be an impermissible interference in a pending litigation to which the Debtors are not a party [Docket No. 2902].

Stay Tuned. Whether the Bankruptcy Court finds the supplemental responses were in fact responsive to the questions posed by the Bankruptcy Court, and were persuasive, remains to be seen.  We will follow up once a decision is rendered by the Bankruptcy Court.  Ideally, the decision will answer the question, at least in this Bankruptcy Court, of within how many degrees of separation does an issue need to be for it to be subject to examination pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004.

Globalization has led to a marked increase in international components to insolvency proceedings.  Cross-border issues add a new layer of complexity to what is often a situation already fraught with obstacles.  Courts and practitioners alike face additional difficulties communicating with other courts, resolving issues consistently in jurisdictions with different laws and policy objectives, and enforcing rulings and implementing orders adjudicated extraterritorially.

Historically, coordination between courts of different jurisdictions was executed on an ad hoc basis—an uncertain, expensive, and time consuming process that potentially reduced the value of the business and recoveries of stakeholders.  Congress took note of the difficulty inherent with parallel insolvency proceedings, and in 2005, added Chapter 15 to the Bankruptcy Code.  Chapter 15 is a significant revision to its predecessor, section 304 of the Code, and addresses issues with the enforcement of insolvency proceedings rooted outside the United States.  However, the addition of Chapter 15 merely addressed some of the difficulties with cross-border insolvencies and only in the United States.  A larger, global resolution was yet to be had.

In October 2016, judicial officials from key commercial insolvency jurisdictions met at the first ever Judicial Insolvency Network conference to address the issues plaguing cross-border insolvency proceedings.  The solution they created was 14 guidelines, or best practices, as well as an annex on joint hearings (the “Guidelines”), all of which were crafted to aid courts and practitioners in cross-border insolvency cases.  In February 2017, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (via Local Bankruptcy Rule 9029-2) and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (via General Order M-511) along with the Supreme Court of Singapore (via Registrar’s Circular No. 1 of 2017) moved the ball forward by adopting the Guidelines.

The Guidelines focus on three primary areas beyond their own implementation and interpretation: communication between courts, the process by which rulings are submitted for recognition between courts, and joint hearings.  The primary issue the Guidelines address is communication.  They establish the bounds of inter-court communication and help to resolve issues about the propriety of ex parte communication between courts. The ex parte communication the Guidelines list as appropriate is generally limited to the forwarding of court documents and clerical coordination between support staff.  Guidelines 7 and 8. However, when ex parte communication between courts may not be avoided and counsel is entitled to be present, those communications should be recorded and transcribed. Guideline 8(ii).  The primary purpose of this kind of communication is clear: to keep sister courts apprised of concurrent proceedings.

The Guidelines also anticipate joint hearings; that is, hearings conducted by video conference to limit the costs associated with conducting multiple proceedings for the same issue. Guidelines at Annex A.   Interestingly, the guidelines are entirely procedural—they specifically exclaim any effect on the substantive laws of their subscribing jurisdiction. Guideline 5.  So, while a hearing may be conducted in front of multiple courts at once, it is up to the practitioner to establish a sufficient record for each jurisdiction.

In this post-Stern opinion (the “Opinion”), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) addresses two main issues with respect to the approval of nonconsensual third-party releases provided for in a chapter 11 plan of confirmation, namely whether a Bankruptcy Court has (1) subject matter jurisdiction to approve, and (2) the constitutional authority to grant such releases. Opinion at 2. The Court handed down its decision on March 17, 2017, over a year after the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) entered its order confirming Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, and its affiliated debtors’ (the “Debtors”) chapter 11 confirmation plan that contained such nonconsensual third-party releases. However, the decision is not, as one might had hoped for, a clarification as to whether a bankruptcy court has the authority to enter a final order approving such releases. Instead, recognizing that this is “far from ideal at this stage of the Chapter 11 proceedings,” the Court remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court to give it an opportunity to address the issue of adjudicatory authority first.  Id. at 28.


The Debtors’ chapter 11 plan provided, among other things, for a large contribution by non-debtor equity holders. Id. at 9. In exchange for the $325 million contribution, the plan contained certain nonconsensual third-party releases providing certain non-debtor equity holders “with full releases and discharges of any and all claims against them and related parties . . . . ”  Id. Importantly, the plan did not provide for an opt-out mechanism, therefore automatically, and regardless of whether creditors consented, granting the releases upon confirmation of the plan. Id. at 9-10.

Prior to the plan confirmation, certain pre-petition lenders (the “Appellants”) filed suit against the non-debtor equity holders alleging, among other things, fraud and violation of RICO claims. Id. at 10. The Appellants further objected to confirmation of the plan on multiple grounds. Id. They asserted, among other things, that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and even if it had subject matter jurisdiction, it lacked the statutory authority to approve the third-party releases. Id. at 11.  After the Bankruptcy Court entered the order approving the chapter 11 plan on December 11, 2015, the Appellants filed an appeal raising several issues, but arguing primarily that “the release and permanent injunction of their direct, non-bankruptcy claims against non-debtors is a final order” prohibited by Stern and Wellness. Id. at 19-20.

A more detailed background of the Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, et al., bankruptcy cases and the history of the appeal can be found here.

Stern and Wellness

Before addressing the particularities of the case before it, the Court revisited the holdings of Stern and Wellness, two recent Supreme Court decisions that address the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdictional authority.  Id. at 2-7 (citing Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011); Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. V. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1938-39 (2015)). The Court noted that these cases make “clear . . . that parties have a constitutional right to have their common law claims adjudicated by an Article III court, and [that] that right cannot be abridged by Congressional action.” Opinion at 3. The Court further noted that, “Article III imposes a structural limitation on the power of an Article I court to enter final orders or judgments on state law claims without the parties’ consent.” Id. at 2. The Court explained that Bankruptcy Courts “may ‘enter appropriate orders and judgments’ only in ‘cases under title 11’ and ‘core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11.’” Id. at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(1)).  In a non-core proceeding, that is “related to” a bankruptcy case, the Court clarified that the Bankruptcy Court’s authority, absent consent of the parties, is limited to hearing the matter and submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to an Article III District Court. Id. at 3-4.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Adjudicatory Authority Post-Stern

The Court, after briefly summarizing the law as to whether the permanent release of a non-debtor, third-party’s claim against another non-debtor third party falls under the purview of “related-to,” “arising in,” or “arising under” title 11 jurisdiction, the Court agreed with the Bankruptcy Court’s holding that such a release falls under the Bankruptcy Court’s “related-to” subject matter jurisdiction.  Id. at 4-5. However, having found that the Bankruptcy Court had subject matter jurisdiction did not end the inquiry for the Court. Id. at 19 (“The impact of Stern is that a finding of ‘related to’ subject matter jurisdiction under the statute does not end the inquiry.”). The Court held that “regardless of whether the Bankruptcy Court has subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings – both core and non-core – it cannot enter a final order releasing third-party claims unless it has constitutional authority to do so as well.” Id. at 7.

The critical question of adjudicatory authority, however, was not addressed by the Bankruptcy Court in its bench ruling confirming the Debtors’ chapter 11 plan. Id. at 14.  With respect to subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Silverstein noted:

The holding in Stern was meant to be a narrow one; one that does not, quote, “meaningfully change the division of labor between the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court.” To this end, debtors cite cases rejecting a Stern challenge, regarding the Bankruptcy Court’s constitutional authority to consider approval of third-party releases in a plan, including Judge Drain’s decision in MPM Silicones, but not any decision in this district. These Courts may be correct.  But because of the necessities of this case, I have not had time to address that argument.  But I need not do so, given my finding that I have related-to jurisdiction.  Having decided I have jurisdiction, I now turn to whether third-party releases are appropriate in this case . . . .

Id. at 14 (quoting 12/11/15 Bankruptcy Court Hr’g. Tr. at 15:23-16:11 [D.I. 206]).

As a result, the District Court, noting that “the Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation ruling . . . did not address whether the Bankruptcy Court lacked adjudicatory authority to enter a final order releasing those claims,” remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court to, “given its experience and expertise, . . .  rule on this issue first.” Opinion at 14, 28.

On April 4, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court held a status conference and has requested briefing on the issue of constitutional authority in 45 days with an additional three-week reply deadline. See Vince Sullivan, Millennium to Brief Court on Creditor 3rd-Party Releases, Law360 (Apr. 4, 2017, 8.35 PM), Judge Silverstein was quoted to have said that “[a]ssuming I don’t decide to strike releases, then I think that there may be the necessity of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id. at 3.

Stay tuned.

On March 23, 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”) issued an opinion in the chapter 15 case of Banco Cruzeiro do Sul, S.A., a Brazilian bank (“BCSUL” or the “Debtor”), holding, among other things, that section 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent foreign representatives from commencing state law fraudulent conveyance actions.  See Laspro Consultores LTDA v. Alinia Corp. (In re Massa Falida Do Banco Cruzeiro Do Sul S.A.), No. 14-22974-BKC-LMI, Adv. Pro. No. 16-01315-LMI, 2017 WL 1102814 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2017) (hereinafter, “Laspro”).  The opinion arose in the context of a motion to dismiss the complaint in an adversary proceeding commenced by Laspro Consultores LTDA, Trustee of BCSUL (“Plaintiff” or the “Foreign Representative”) against Alinia Corporation (“Alinia”) and 110 CPS, Inc. (“CPS” and together with Alinia, the “Defendants”).  See id., at *1.

The Foreign Proceeding and the Chapter 15 Case

In September 2012 BCSUL was placed into extra judicial liquidation by the Central Bank of Brazil.  Laspro, 2017 WL 1102814, at *1.  On June 14, 2014, BCSUL filed a petition in the Court for recognition of the Brazilian liquidation proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under sections 1515 and 1517 of the Bankruptcy Code.  See id., at *2.  On July 14, 2014, the Court entered an order recognizing the Brazilian liquidation proceeding as a “foreign main proceeding.”  Id.  On August 12, 2015, the Brazilian bankruptcy court decreed BCSUL bankrupt.  Id.  As of January 21, 2016, Plaintiff was the sole trustee of BCSUL’s estate.  Id.

The Adversary Complaint

On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint (as amended, the “Complaint”) in the Court based on allegations that Luis Felippe Indio da Costa (“Felippe”) and Luis Octavio Indio da Costa (“Octavio”), members of the family involved in BCSUL’s management, orchestrated a fraudulent loan scheme in which funds from BCSUCL were diverted to the Defendants.  Laspro, 2017 WL 1102814, at *2.  Felippe is alleged to be the settlor and sole beneficiary of the trust that owns Alinia.  Id.  CPS is owned by a Brazlian entity that is alleged to be jointly owned by Felippe and Octavio.  Id.  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the diverted funds were used to purchase two apartments in New York City and certain artwork located therein, that allegedly were then transferred to the Defendants.  Id.  The counts in the Complaint fall into four basic categories: (i) imposition of a constructive trust/equitable lien; (ii) fraudulent conveyance under New York law; (iii) aiding and abetting; and (iv) four separate Brazlian law claims regarding consumer protection, misappropriation, unjust enrichment and fraudulent collusion.  Id., at *2*-3; see also Laspro, Docket No. 25.

The Motion to Dismiss

On October 26, 2016, Defendants filed a motion dismiss all counts of the Complaint arguing, among other things, that section 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes the Foreign Representative from bringing the state fraudulent conveyance counts because they were akin to “avoidance actions” under the Bankruptcy Code which the Foreign Representative did not have standing to prosecute.  Laspro, 2017 WL 1102814, at *3.  Section 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code states that “[u]pon recognition of a foreign proceeding . . . the court may, at the request of the foreign representative, grant . . . any additional relief that may be available to a trustee, except for relief available under sections 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 724(a)” of the Bankruptcy Code.  11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7).

The Court’s Holding

The Court relied on the explicit language of sections 1509 and 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code to deny the motion to dismiss with respect to the state fraudulent conveyance claims.  Laspro, 2017 WL 1102814, at *6.  Specifically, although the Court acknowledged that section 1521(a)(7) does preclude a court from granting a foreign representative relief under “certain enumerated sections pursuant to which a bankruptcy trustee may bring avoidance actions,” it found that same section to “not prohibit a foreign representative from bringing avoidance claims that are available to the foreign representative generally under non-bankruptcy law.”  Id.  Moreover, the Court pointed to section 1509(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, which “makes clear” that “the failure of a foreign representative to commence a case or to obtain recognition under [chapter 15] does not affect any right the foreign representative may have to sue in a court in the United States to collect or recover a claim which is the property of the debtor.”  Id.; see also 11 U.S.C. § 1507(f).  Accordingly, the Court found that the Foreign Representative’s ability to seek relief under the New York state fraudulent conveyance laws stemmed not from its capacity as a “foreign representative” under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, but its capacity as the Brazilian bankruptcy judicial administrator “who represents the creditors of the estate under Brazilian law.”  Laspro, 2017 WL 1102814, at *6, *9; see also id., at *7 (“There is absolutely nothing in any part of chapter 15 that remotely suggests that a foreign representative may never bring an avoidance claim that the foreign representative has the direct right to bring in his or her capacity as the foreign representative (or as section 1509(f) makes clear — in his or her independent capacity otherwise).”).  For these same reasons, the Court also denied the motion to dismiss as to the constructive trust/equitable lien claims.  Id., at *9.


In light of the foregoing, it behooves foreign representatives to carefully analyze the nature of each cause of action they might be able to bring in a chapter 15 proceeding.

Traditional DIP Order Carve Outs Do Not Cap the Administrative Claims of Committee Professionals

On January 5, 2017, Judge Sontchi of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) in the pending Molycorp Chapter 11 case (Case No. 15-11357).  In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017).  In the Opinion, the Court rejected a challenge by OCM MLYCo. Ltd. (“Oaktree”), one of Molycorp’s pre-petition secured lenders, Molycorp’s DIP Lender and, in combination with Molycorp’s other set of secured lenders, purchaser of Molycorp’s more profitable operating subsidiaries, to the fees & expenses of Paul Hastings LLP, lead counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”).


Molycorp’s Chapter 11 has been extremely contentious and detailing its history would take many pages.  The facts relevant to the Opinion are quite simple.  The DIP Financing Order entered by the Court provided for a carve-out of $250,000 for the Committee to investigate pre-petition claims against Oaktree (the “Investigation Budget”).  D.I. 278, ¶ 4(b).  The Committee began investigating potential claims against Oaktree almost immediately and, on January 14, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the Committee standing to bring litigation on the estate’s behalf against Oaktree.  D.I. 1086.  After mediation with all major parties in the case before the Honorable Robert D. Drain (SDNY), the Debtors filed a notice of the execution of a global settlement agreement on February 22, 2016, including a settlement of the claims brought by the Committee (the “Settlement Agreement”).  D.I. 1302, Settlement Agreement at Ex. A.  In the Court’s own words, “[t]he Settlement Agreement paved the way for a consensual reorganization plan for certain of the Debtors.”  Molycorp, 562 B.R. at 72.  On April 8, 2016, the Court entered an Order confirming a plan of reorganization premised on the Settlement Agreement.  D.I. 1580.

After the Settlement Agreement was approved, Paul Hastings filed a Second Interim Fee Application, covering the period from September 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016, requesting Court approval of $8,491,064.75 in fees and $226,179.06 in expenses (the “Fee Application”).  Oaktree objected to Paul Hastings’ Fee Application on four grounds.  First, Oaktree argued that the DIP Financing Order established a dispositive cap of $250,000.00 (the “Cap”) on the fees and expenses of the Committee counsel in relation to the investigation of claims against Oaktree.  Id. at 73.  Second, Oaktree argued that the DIP Financing Order only authorized the compensation of the Committee’s professionals for the investigation of claims, not for the initiation and prosecution of such claims.  Id.  Third, Oaktree argued that even if the Cap was not dispositive, “any portion of Paul Hastings’ fees that exceeds the cap set by the DIP Financing Order is presumptively unreasonable.”  Id. at 73-74.  Finally, Oaktree argued that the descriptions of the work performed by Paul Hastings’ attorneys were excessively vague and should be disallowed.  Id. at 74.

The Opinion

The Court’s opinion was decisive but comprehensive.  As the Court explained, before confirmation of a plan, “absent equity in the [secured party’s] collateral, administrative claimants cannot look to encumbered property to provide a source of payment for their claims.”  Molycorp, 562 B.R. at 75.  Thus, there was no doubt that as the secured party, Oaktree’s consent was necessary for the payment of administrative expenses and Oaktree was within its rights to “impose[] a limit on the amount of its collateral which may be used to pay the attorneys employed by the Committee.”  Id. at 77.

11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(9)(A), however, mandates that for a plan to be confirmed, each holder of an allowed administrative expense claim, unless agreed otherwise, must be paid in cash equal to the allowed amount of such claim on the effective date of the plan.  Molycorp, 562 B.R. at 77.  Therefore, “if the secured parties desire confirmation, the administration claims must be paid in full in cash even if it means invading their collateral.”  Id. at 78 (quoting In re Emons Industries, Inc., 76 B.R. 59, 60 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)).  Therefore, “in the context of a plan confirmation, a cap on the amount to be paid towards administrative expenses may only be approved after obtaining the administrative claimants’ consent.”  Molycorp, 562 B.R. at 78.

The Court then held that the Investigation Budget in the DIP Order unambiguously “[did] not contain any language that can compel automatic disallowance of Paul Hastings’ fees.”  Id. at 79.  The Court saw nothing in the language of the DIP Order that differed from a standard carve-out provision.  Id.  The Court  also noted the difference between the language in the DIP Order and the language in the Confirmed Plan, which stated that “[a]ny amounts incurred by the Creditors’ Committee’s legal professionals on and after the Committee Settlement Effective Date with respect to the Creditors’ Committee Legal Fee Cap Matters in excess of the Creditors’ Committee Legal Fee Cap shall be disallowed.”  Id. at 80 (emphasis in original).  The Court noted that the difference in language spoke for itself and made absolutely clear that “the costs incurred by Paul Hastings are not affected by the DIP Financing Order.”  Id.  Finally, the Court concluded by allowing Paul Hastings’ fees and expenses as reasonable compensation for services rendered, noting that the “record demonstrates that the services rendered benefited the Debtor’s estate and advantaged the Committee’s constituents.”  Id. at 82.

The Unanswered Question—Can a DIP Order Ever Be Used to Cap The Committee’s Professionals’ Administrative Claims?

The Court declined to answer whether it would ever uphold a provision in a DIP Order capping the allowable administrative claims of the Committee’s professionals.  Id. at p. 80, n. 62.  Both the parties and the Court noted that other courts had approved such provisions in a DIP Order, most notably In re Granite Broadcasting Corp. (ALG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2007).  The Court did, however, note that there was an ongoing debate “with regard to the term ‘agreed’ [in § 1129(a)(9)(A)]: whether this requires a creditor expressly or affirmatively consent to a different treatment, or whether consent may be implied from the creditor’s conduct.”  Molycorp, 562 B.R. at 78, n. 54.

The Court’s acknowledgement of this debate was not mere happenstance.  If consent to lesser treatment may be implied from a creditor’s conduct, a court could find that by accepting employment from the Committee after such a DIP Order has been entered, a Committee professional has impliedly consented to the hard cap in the DIP Order.  If, however, implied consent is insufficient, it seems unlikely that a Court could ever find a hard cap in a DIP Order binding.

The Court did, however, signal its position on this debate in a footnote.  In explaining the debate over the type of consent necessary under § 1129(a)(9)(A), the Court cited to In re Teligent, Inc., in which administrative creditors who had not returned a ballot were deemed to have agreed to lesser treatment (the case was administratively insolvent).  The Court viewed the holding in Telligent as a “questionable fiction.”  Molycorp, 562 B.R. at 78, n. 54.  It therefore appears questionable that Judge Sontchi will be well disposed to arguments that an administrative claimant has impliedly consented to lesser treatment and, by implication, to DIP Orders which attempt to place a hard cap on the administrative claims of Committee professionals.

Sometimes the smallest bankruptcy cases give rise to the most interesting legal questions.  One such case was that of ScripsAmerica, Inc., which gave rise to the question of whether the Office of the United States Trustee (the “UST”) has the statutory authority to disband a committee of unsecured creditors once a committee is appointed, or whether that authority resides with the Bankruptcy Court.

By way of background, ScripsAmerica was a publicly-traded holding company whose primary assets were its ownership interest in a compounding pharmacy known as Main Avenue Pharmacy, Inc., 90% interest in a pharmaceutical wholesaler, and indirect control over another compounding pharmacy.  Substantially all of ScripsAmerica’s revenues, however, were derived from Main Avenue.  Main Avenue was forced to shut down its operations, depriving ScripsAmerica of any meaningful source of revenue.  ScripsAmerica had its own problems as well, including protracted litigation with an entity known as Ironridge Global IV, Ltd., which had paid off certain debts in return for the issuance of shares of ScripsAmerica and the resignation of the CEO and President of the company under a cloud of suspicion.

ScripsAmerica filed for bankruptcy protection on September 7, 2016.  See In re ScripsAmerica, Inc., Case No. 16-11991 (LSS).  On November 3, 2016 the UST appointed a committee (the “Committee”) consisting of two members: the former CEO and Ironridge.  Almost immediately, on November 4, 2016, the debtor filed a motion to disband the Committee, to which both the UST and Committee objected on November 21, 2016.

In its motion to disband the Committee, the debtor relied heavily on the fact that there were only two members of the Committee, one of which was a party against whom the debtor had been engaged in protracted pre-petition litigation and the other being the former CEO (an insider) of the debtor against whom the debtor alleged it had various claims (including, inter alia, claims related to the CEO entering into the Ironridge agreement in the first instance).   The debtor took the position that the Bankruptcy Court had the authority to disband the Committee pursuant to sections 105(a) and 105(d) of the Bankruptcy Code and relied upon case law in which a bankruptcy court had done so, albeit after appointment of a chapter 11 trustee.  See In re Pacific Ave., LLC, 467 B.R. 868, 870 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2012).

In their objections, the UST and Committee argued, among other things, that the Bankruptcy Court lacked statutory authority to disband a committee (except where a chapter 11 case is a small business case) because section 1102 is silent on the authority of a Bankruptcy Court to do so and section 105(d) cannot be deployed to expand the Bankruptcy Court’s authority beyond what it is statutorily granted.

The issue of disbandment languished for a time but revved up again when the debtor and Committee could not reach agreement on a plan of reorganization, at which point the debtor re-noticed its motion.  On January 11, 2017, the UST filed a notice of disbandment of the Committee.  The Court directed the Committee to file an adversary proceeding in order to resolve the question of whether the UST had statutory authority to disband the Committee.

In its brief notice of disbandment, the UST asserted that it had the statutory authority to disband the committee under 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(E), which authorizes the UST to “supervise the administration of cases … under chapter … 11 … of title 11 by, whenever the United States trustee considers it to be appropriate – monitoring creditors’ committees appointed under title 11.”

In its motion for summary judgment, the committee argued in the first instance that the UST’s purported disbandment of the committee violated the careful separation between administrative powers (vested in the UST) and judicial powers (vested with the Bankruptcy Court) inherent in the Bankruptcy Code.  The crux of the Committee’s argument, however, was that the UST simply has no statutory authority to disband a committee.

The committee first looked to section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to which the UST is directed to appoint a committee and given authority to appoint additional members to a committee.  Nothing in that provision, however, expressly authorizes the UST to disband a committee.  See 11 U.S.C. § 1102.  The committee invoked the doctrine of expression unius est exclusion alterius, noting that Congress’s failure to include within section 1102(a)(1) the power to disband a committee once appointed precluded the UST from doing so.  On the other hand, the committee pointed out that section 1102(a)(4), added by BAPCPA, provides that the Court may order the UST to change the composition of the committee.   With regard to 28 U.S.C. §  586(a)(3)(E), the committee pointed out that the term “monitoring” was consistent with the administrative functions delegated to the UST, but did not encompass the judicial function of disbanding the committee.

The debtors—who had originally argued that the Bankruptcy Court had the authority to disband the committee in their motion requesting that it do so—argued in their opposition that the power to disband a committee is “inherent” in the UST’s authority under section 1102(a)(1) to form a committee, in conjunction with the UST’s power to “monitor” the committee under 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(E).  The debtors claimed that, prior to BAPCPA and the addition of section 1102(a)(4), the UST’s ability to remove committee members was not subject to Court review, although the debtor never actually pointed to any basis upon which that unfettered authority existed.  The debtors then relied heavily upon the case of In re VentureLink Holdings, Inc., 299 B.R. 420 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2003).  While VentureLink did contain similar facts to those in ScripsAmerica, the opinion largely proved the Committee’s point: the composition of the committee in VentureLink was modified, not by an edict of the UST (which had refused to remove the member in question), but by an order of the Bankruptcy Court.  See 299 B.R. at 424.  The VentureLink decision suggests that the UST has the authority to remove members of a committee in the first instance, but final authority rests with the Bankruptcy Court.

The UST never submitted a brief in support of its notice of disbandment because, before it was required to do so, ScripsAmerica’s chapter 11 proceeding was converted to a chapter 7, largely because the estate was administratively insolvent, in no small part because of the litigation over disbandment of the Committee.

Predicting where the Bankruptcy Court might have come out on the issue is impossible because, in the end, neither the Bankruptcy Code nor title 28 clearly grant anybody—either the Court or the UST—the authority to disband a committee.  Logic would seem to dictate that some mechanism for eliminating a committee under the right circumstances should exist, but Congress does not appear to have given statutory expression to that logical observation.

Nor does the case law provide clear guidance.  In a relatively recent decision, a Bankruptcy Court concluded that it lacked statutory authority to disband a committee once appointed, but did not find that the UST had the authority to disband a committee.  See, e.g., In re Caesars Entm’t Operating Co, Inc., 526 B.R. 265 (Bankr N.D. Ill. 2015) (in fact, the UST shared the moving debtors’ concern that the committee in question would engage in duplicative activities that would increase fees, yet the court did not suggest the UST had the power to disband the committee); cf. Credit Suisse AG v. Appaloosa Inv. L.P., 2015 WL 52570003 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 9, 2015) (discussing court’s earlier order denying motion to disband on grounds that court lacked statutory authority).  In another case, the Bankruptcy Court declined to rule on whether it had the authority to disband a committee because it concluded on the facts that doing so was not appropriate, though the court also did not conclude that only the UST had the authority to disband a committee.  See In re Dewey & Leboeuf LLP, 2012 WL 5985325 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2012).  However, counsel seeking to have a committee disbanded may take heart in the fact that in at least one case a court allowed the fees of the movant.  See In re Keene Corp., 205 B.R. 690, 704-05 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997).

Unfortunately for those seeking clarity on the scope of the UST’s authority, the conversion of the ScripsAmerica case mooted the issue of the disbandment of the committee.  Thus, the bankruptcy bar will have to wait until the next time the UST seeks to disband a committee for case law on whether the UST has that authority.

Disclosure:  Cole Schotz P.C. represents a significant unsecured creditor of ScripsAmerica, Inc. and advocated for the conversion of the case to a chapter 7 proceeding.  Neither Cole Schotz P.C. nor its client took any position on the authority of the UST to disband the Committee.

Since February 2016, the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware provide for combined hearings on approval of disclosure statements and confirmation of plans and for the use of combined disclosure statement and plans in liquidating chapter 11 cases.

Although combined hearings in such cases occurred prior to the enactment of the new rule, they were relatively rare and often subject to objection.  Such objections were largely based upon the limitations in section 1125(f) of the Bankruptcy Code that provides, among other things, that “the court may determine that the plan itself provides adequate information and that a separate disclosure statement is not necessary” and that “the hearing on the disclosure statement may be combined with the hearing on confirmation of a plan” in a small business case.  The Code is silent on the process as it relates to non-small business chapter 11 cases.

For example, in In re Corinthian Colleges, Inc., No. 15-10952 (KJC), the Department of Education objected to a combined process arguing that “[a]n integrated plan and disclosure statement is permitted for small business bankruptcies . . . [and] [b]y authorizing a combined disclosure statement and plan for chapter 11 bankruptcies of small businesses, Congress implicitly prohibited them for other chapter 11 bankruptcies.”  [D.I. 580].  Similarly in In re Old FOH, Inc., No. 15-10836 (KG), the debtors submitted a combined plan and disclosure statement.  In that case, the United States Trustee objected arguing, among other things, that a combined document is ordinarily only appropriate in small business cases.  [D.I. 421].  In each case, the court overruled the objections.

Other Judges in the District of Delaware have approved combined hearings on the approval of disclosure statements and the confirmation of chapter 11 plans in non-small business and non-prepacked cases prior to the enactment of the rule.  See, e.g., In re Hipcricket, Inc., Case No. 15-10104 (LSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 31, 2015); In re AFA Investment Inc., Case No. 12-11127 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. January 16, 2014); In re Devonshire PGA Holdings, LLC, Case No. 13-12460 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 16, 2013); In re Rubicon US REIT, Inc., Case No. 10-10160 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del. June 21, 2010).

Now a combined process, including the use of a combined document containing the plan and disclosure statement, is expressly contemplated by Local Rule 3017-2 which provides as follows:

(a)   Applicability. This Local Rule shall be applicable to all cases arising under chapter 11 of the Code where the following requirements are met:

(i)  All or substantially all of the assets of the debtor[s] were or will be liquidated pursuant to a sale under 11 S.C. § 363; and

(ii)  The plan of liquidation proposes to comply with section 1129(a)(9) of the Code; and

(iii)  The plan of liquidation does not seek non-consensual releases/injunctions with respect to claims creditors may hold against non-debtor parties; and

(iv)  The debtor’s combined assets to be distributed pursuant to the proposed plan of liquidation are estimated, in good faith, to be worth less than $25 million (excluding causes of action).

(b)  Combined Disclosure Statement and Plan of Liquidation. A plan proponent may combine the disclosure statement and plan of liquidation into one document.

Since the enactment of Local Rule 3017-2, the use of combined plan and disclosure statements and/or combined hearings appear to have increased, particularly in liquidating cases with assets less than $25 million.  See, e.g., In re SDI Solutions LLC, Case No. 16-10627 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. May 24, 2016); DNIB Unwind, Inc. (f/k/a BIND Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-11084 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 26, 2016).

Proponents of the combined process contend that it is more streamlined, less expensive, and quicker.  See, e.g., In re JMO Wind Down, Inc., Case No. 16-10682 (BLS) [D.I. 320].  The author predicts that practioners in the District of Delaware will continue to increasingly take advantage of the combined process in the right cases due to the enactment of Local Rule 3017-2.

On January 6, 2017, Judge Robert D. Drain of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York orally approved a prepackaged plan of reorganization (a “Prepack”) in In re Roust Corporation, et al. (Case No. 16-23786), only seven days after Roust Corporation (“Roust Corp”) and two of its affiliates, CEDC Finance Corporation LLC (“CEDC Finco”) and CEDC Finance Corporation International, Inc. (together with Roust Corp, the “Debtors”), filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11.  By having a plan of reorganization confirmed in only seven days, In re Roust became the fourth shortest Chapter 11 reorganization in recent history, and the shortest in the Southern District of New York (Judge Drain noted that the average length of a true prepack in SDNY is thirty-five days).  This blog post examines the seven most important steps the Debtors took to achieve such a speedy confirmation, and, along the way, highlights several notable legal holdings made by Judge Drain at confirmation.

The Facts and Circumstances of In re Roust

The Debtors and the Debt

The Debtors, all holding companies, filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 on December 30, 2016 (the “Petition Date”).  Roust Corp, the lead Debtor, wholly owned, directly or indirectly, the equity in several dozen non-Debtor affiliated entities (the “NDEs” and, together with the Debtors, the “Roust Group”).  Through its operating entities, the Roust Group comprised one of the largest vodka producers in the world and the largest integrated spirit beverages business in Central and Eastern Europe.  Roust Corp was ultimately wholly owned by a single individual—Roustam Tariko (“Tariko”), the founder and sole owner of the conglomerate known as the Russian Standard Group (“Russian Standard”), whose enterprises include Russian Standard Vodka (“RSV”), the largest domestic distiller and distributor of Vodka in Russia, and Russian Standard Bank, one of the largest Russian banks and leading consumer lender in Russia.  Tariko, through Russian Standard, wholly owned Roust Trading Limited (“RTL”), which itself owned 100% of the equity in Roust Corp and, therefore, 100% of the Roust Group.

Tariko and Russian Standard acquired the Roust Group through the Chapter 11 reorganization of Central European Distribution Corporation (“CEDC”), which filed for Chapter 11 relief in the District of Delaware in 2013 (Case No. 13-10738-CSS).  RTL had held a 19.5% equity stake in CEDC prior to its 2013 bankruptcy and, through a substantial capital contribution in CEDC’s Plan of Reorganization, acquired 100% of the equity in the reorganized CEDC, which was subsequently renamed Roust Corp.

As part of CDEC’s plan of reorganization in 2013, CEDC Finco was created and issued two set of notes: the Senior Secured Notes and the Senior Convertible PIK Notes (the “Convertible Notes” and, together with the Senior Secured Notes, the “Noteholders”), both due 2018.  At the time of the Debtors’ filing in 2016, approximately $488 million in principal of the Senior Secured Notes and $279 million in principal of the Convertible Notes were outstanding.  Although the NDE’s had various debts and credit facilities outstanding at the Petition Date, the Debtors did not propose to alter or impair any debts owed to non-Russian Standard third parties.

The Plan

Simultaneously with their petitions for relief, the Debtors filed their Amended and Restated Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) [Docket No. 8].  On January 6, 2017, Judge Drain held a hearing at which he approved confirmation of the Debtors’ Plan [Docket No. 39] and on January 10, 2017, Judge Drain issued his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Approving Confirmation (the “Confirmation Order”) [Docket No. 41].  The Debtors provided two reasons for why it was necessary to have the Plan confirmed so quickly: (1) there was a severe stigma attached to bankruptcy in the Eastern European markets in which the NDEs operated and (2) the Roust Group was required to pay significant exist taxes in Russia in January, and the capital infusion provided for in the Plan was necessary for those taxes to be paid.  Confirmation Transcript [Docket No. 39] at p. 21, ln. 23 – p. 22, ln. 21.

The Plan impaired only three classes: the Senior Secured Notes, the Convertible Notes and Roust’s equity holder, RTL.  First, the Plan provided for the Senior Secured Notes to receive new senior secured notes in principal amount of $385 million at 10% interest, cash consideration of $20 million, the right to participate in a $55 million rights offering (the “Share Placement”) and a debt-to-equity conversion for 12.08% of the common stock in Reorganized Roust.  Second, the Plan provided for the Convertible Notes to receive 10.59% of the equity in Reorganized Roust through a debt-to-equity conversion, an additional 1.00% of equity contributed from Russian Standard and the right to participate in the Share Placement.  Finally, Russian Standard, through RTL, was to receive 57.04% of the equity in Reorganized Roust in exchange for contributing Russian Standard Vodka to Reorganized Roust and forgiving $116 million of debt owing from Roust and RSV to RTL and its non-Roust subsidiaries.  Additionally, $100 million owed to Roust by RTL and its non-Roust subsidiaries was deemed repaid.

The Plan also contained two broad categories of releases: (1) “Releases by the Debtors” [Art. 9(B)] and (2) “Releases by Holders of Claims” [Art. 9(C)].  Under Art. 9(B), the Debtors released all claims against the “Released Parties,” which included Noteholders, Notes Trustees, RSV, RTL, Russian Standard, the NDEs and all of the foregoing’s affiliates, subsidiaries, managers, etc.  Under Art. 9(C), the definition of “Holders of Claims” was all-encompassing; thus, every creditor and interest holder in the case was releasing the Released Parties.

Seven Steps to Confirmation in Seven Days

The long term significance of Roust is contingent on whether it provides clear guidelines for how, and under what circumstances, such a quick path to confirmation can be achieved.  The Seven Steps detailed below are an attempt to summarize the facts and legal issues Judge Drain focused on during the Confirmation Hearing, and, more importantly, the reasons Judge Drain found those facts and legal issues significant.  Some of these steps involve relatively unique features of In re Roust—but even the most unique features can be partially replicated in other cases.  For example, an extremely important feature in In re Roust was the fact that Tariko wholly owned the Russian Standard Group and therefore had the unilateral power to grant releases to the Debtors and NDEs.  While this fact was influential because it removed the need for Judge Drain to conduct an exhaustive analysis of the propriety of those releases, Judge Drain’s questions and comments during the Confirmation Hearing made clear that the more the Debtors accomplished through private contractual arrangements, and the less they invoked the coercive power of the Bankruptcy Court, the more comfortable he was with confirming the Plan in such a short period of time.  It is the lesson, not the fact, that might prove significant for prospective debtors attempting to secure a speedy confirmation of a prepackaged plan.  It goes without saying that following the seven steps below won’t guarantee confirmation in seven days; every Debtor and every Judge has different issues and concerns that must be addressed.

Step 1.  Secure Overwhelming—Preferably Unanimous—Support from All Impaired Classes under the Plan

First and foremost, Judge Drain made clear that such a quick confirmation would be all but impossible without the overwhelming support of creditors.  All parties impaired by the Plan—Russian Standard, the Senior Secured Noteholders and the Convertible Noteholders—unanimously supported the plan.  Not a single Noteholder voted against the Plan, with, by aggregate value, 90% of the Senior Notes and 93% of the Convertible Notes voting in favor of confirmation.  Confirmation Transcript at p. 8, ln. 24 – p. 9, ln. 6.  In contrast, only two parties objected to the Plan: the U.S. Trustee (the “Trustee”) and the IRS, and the latter’s objection was resolved consensually prior to the Confirmation Hearing.

The Trustee made numerous objections, but devoted most of its written objection to four issues: (1) insufficient notice; (2) unconfirmable non-Debtor releases; (3) inadequate evidence of feasibility; and (4) improper allowance of administrative claims for professionals retained by the Noteholders.  U.S. Trustee’s Objection, Docket No. 22, at p. 11-20.  And Judge Drain, in overruling the first three objections, repeatedly cited the impaired classes’ overwhelming support of the Plan as a basis for his rulings.  When considering whether notice was sufficiently given, Judge Drain twice noted the sheer size of the Plan’s support.  Confirmation Transcript at p. 40, ln. 3-5, p. 43, ln. 18-19.  When considering the accuracy of the Debtors valuation, he reasoned that the overwhelming support of the impaired classes implied an accurate valuation.  Confirmation Transcript at p. 72, ln. 8-14.  When determining the propriety of the Plan’s releases, he noted that “the parties affected by it, now, have voted unanimously in favor of the Plan” and that “the lack of any objecting party with an economic stake” implied “that such parties are not aware of any potentially valuable claims against any of the released parties.”  Confirmation Transcript at p. 85, ln. 17 – p. 86, ln. 2, p. 86, ln. 24 – p. 87, ln. 8.

Step 2.  Give Notice—Lots of Notice

Second, the Debtors went above and beyond the requirements of the Code in giving pre-petition notice to the interested parties of both the terms of the Plan and the accelerated timeline in which the Debtors were seeking to confirm the Plan.  First, nearly two months prior to filing, the Debtors sought and received a tentative date for their combined hearing on the Disclosure Statement and confirmation of the Plan.  Second, on December 1, 2016, the Debtors mailed notice of the combined hearing to all parties in interest, mailed their solicitation materials and ballots to all parties entitled to vote upon the Plan and posted all of these documents online with Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC (“Epiq”) the Debtors’ voting and noticing agent.  Third, the Debtors published notice of the hearing in the international edition of the Financial Times.

This, however, was not enough for the Trustee, who objected on the grounds that the Debtors had not met the notice requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 3017, which requires that holders and claims and interests be given at least 28 days notice of the hearing on approval of the DS, and Bankruptcy Rule 2002, which requires 28 days notice of the deadline for filing objections to approval of the DS.  U.S. Trustee’s Objection at pp. 11-14.  The Trustee also argued that the Debtors had failed to give “any party in interest any ability to object because the objection deadline passed even before the Petitions were actually filed.”  Id. at p. 14.

Judge Drain, however, disagreed, on the basis that “Bankruptcy Rule 2002 provides for twenty-eight days’ notice.  It doesn’t say twenty-eight days after the Petition Date.”  Confirmation Transcript at p. 36, ln. 11-13.  As he explained, the Bankruptcy Code clearly contemplates prepackaged plans of reorganization and neither Bankruptcy Rule 2002 nor Rule 3007 tie their required notice periods to the date of the petition.  Id. at p. 44-45.  Thus, so long as the notice was not deficient and twenty-eight days’ notice was given to the required parties, “you’ve complied with the rules.”  Id. at p. 37, ln. 11-16.  Judge Drain also rejected the Trustee’s contention that the parties in interest lacked the ability to object, noting that (1) the parties in interest were still given thirty days to object (by mailing an objection to the Debtors pre-petition) and (2) the Court would have given any objecting party more time if someone had requested additional time.  Id. at p. 42, ln.. 4-9.

This is perhaps the most significant legal ruling in In re Roust; as Judge Drain noted, the average duration of a prepack “is about thirty-five days.”  Id. at p. 45, ln. 13.  Although few prepacks might have the necessary characteristics that allow confirmation seven days after filing, many prepacks may have some of these characteristics, which may enable confirmation fifteen, twenty, or twenty five days after filing.  Although many prospective debtors will have substantial reasons not to publicly disclose their impending bankruptcy filing—most notably, publicly traded companies or debtors with significant confidentiality concerns—Judge Drain’s interpretation of Bankruptcy Rules 2002 and 3007 pave the way for debtors without need of confidentiality to significantly shorten the period of time they spend in Chapter 11.

Step 3.  Identify All of Your Unsecured Creditors

Perhaps the most unusual characteristic of In re Roust, in comparison to a typical corporate Chapter 11 case, was the unsecured creditor pool.  First, because all three Debtors were holding companies, they had only eleven unsecured creditors.  Id. at p. 26, ln. 10 – p. 27, ln. 5.  Second, all of these unsecured creditors were professionals, a fact that proves significant in Step Four.  Id. at p. 27, ln. 1-5.  Third, the Debtors had identified each unsecured creditor specifically and had given notice of the confirmation hearing to each unsecured creditor individually.  Id. at p. 33, ln. 19 – p. 34, ln. 16.  The de minimis number of unsecured creditors, the Debtors’ specific identification and noticing of each unsecured creditor, and the fact that the unsecured creditors were not being impaired, combined, seemed to play a significant role in minimizing any concerns Judge Drain may have had regarding the adequacy of notice by making it extremely reasonable for Judge Drain to infer that it was highly unlikely that any unsecured creditors had not been given notice and a chance to be heard.

Step 4.  Demonstrate that All Interested Parties, Especially Impaired Parties, Are Sophisticated and Capable of Protecting Their Own Interests

Fourth, the fact that all of the Debtors’ creditors were sophisticated parties clearly increased Judge Drain’s comfort with the notice given by the Debtors and with the speed of confirmation.  In responding to the Trustee’s assertion that it wasn’t clear whether the unsecured creditors were sophisticated enough to know if they should, or even how to, object to confirmation, Judge Drain immediately responded that “looking at who they are, I think they are.”  Confirmation Transcript at p. 39, ln. 20 – p. 40, ln. 11.  In overruling the Trustee’s objection that insufficient or inadequate notice had been given, Judge Drain specifically noted that “this is not a request to bless a notice to moms and pops or even dentists and doctors.”  Id. at p. 49, ln. 6-13.  Similarly, in approving the Disclosure Statement, Judge Drain found it important that “the people who are impaired here are all qualified institutional investors” and therefore the Disclosure Statement was sufficient “under the securities laws, too.”  Confirmation Transcript at p. 50, ln. 20 – p. 51, ln. 11.  Finally, in approving the releases under the Plan, Judge Drain noted that “with sophisticated advisors and they [the Noteholders] themselves being sophisticated,” the release language in the ballots and the Plan more than sufficiently “warned parties of their contents.”  Id. at p. 85, ln. 17-25.

In short, the sophistication of the parties in interest belied any concern Judge Drain may have had that seven days from filing to confirmation was too short a time for the affected parties to digest the terms of the Plan or to determine how their interests would be affected.  In combination with the overwhelming support of the Noteholders, and the miniscule number of unsecured creditors, it appears that Judge Drain concluded that elongating the case would serve no useful purpose.

Step 5.  Achieve as Much as Possible Through Contractual Arrangements and Minimize Usage of the Coercive Power of the Bankruptcy Court

In contrast to the Trustee’s objections, Judge Drain’s focus was on ensuring that the Plan distinguished between (1) what actions in the Plan Judge Drain was ordering under the authority of the Bankruptcy Code and (2) what actions in the Plan were occurring as the result of private negotiations by and among the Debtors, Noteholders and Russian Standard.  In determining that the third party releases in the Plan were appropriate, Judge Drain repeatedly sought clarification from the Debtors that the releases by Russian Standard entities of claims against the Debtors and the NDEs were not being foisted upon Russian Standard by Judge Drain, and instead were being released voluntarily by Russian Standard.  Confirmation Transcript at Transcript at p. 15, ln. 24 – p. 16, ln. 1., p. 40, ln. 24 – p. 41, ln. 4., p. 73, ln. 14 – p. 80, ln. 9.  Similarly, the Plan provided that intercompany claims would be reinstated, but “subject to the express contractual subordination to the new Senior Secured Notes” or “released, waived and discharged, treated as a dividend, or contributed to capital or exchanged for equity.”  Judge Drain noted that such treatment in a plan of reorganization clearly qualified as impairment.  The Debtors, in response, clarified that these intercompany claims were not being altered through the Plan, but through private contractual arrangements among the RSA parties—the language in the Plan merely memorialized these arrangements.  Id. at p. 78, ln. 6 – p. 80, ln. 5.  A similar exchange occurred over the treatment of executory contracts, Id. at p. 77, ln. 17 – p. 78, ln. 2.

Step 6.  Provide a Mechanism of Review for All Post-Petition Professional Fees and Expenses Being Paid under the Plan

The Trustee did, however, unequivocally win one of its objections, although not in the way the Trustee hoped.  Although the Debtors professional were to be compensated through the normal process of § 327 and § 330 of the Code, the Debtors proposed, under Article I(A)(64) and (110) of the Plan, to allow as administrative claims the professional fees and expenses of the RSA Parties and the Notes Trustees without any need for those professionals to apply to the Bankruptcy Court for compensation.  The Trustee argued that the Court’s previous holding in In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 487 B.R. 181 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 508 B.R. 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) established that that Sections 1123(b)(6) and 1129(a)(4) of the Code could not serve as a basis for paying the professional fees and expenses of creditors without the necessity of filing an application and meeting their evidentiary burden for payment under Section 503(b) of the Code.  Trustee’s Objection at p. 17-20.

Judge Drain disagreed with the Trustee’s arguments, and held that Lehman Brothers should be read narrowly to apply to the professional fees and expenses of official creditors’ committee’s members, and not broadly to all creditors.  Confirmation Transcript at p. 67, ln. 24 – p. 70, ln. 4.  Nonetheless, the Court held that § 1129(a)(4) requires that any fees being paid under that provision be reasonable and be subject to court review” and therefore an objective third party was needed “to make the type of objection that objective third parties make.”  Id. at p. 70, ln. 17-22.  Thus, the Court simply required that Notes Trustees and RSA Parties submit a copy of their professional fees and expenses claims; if the Trustee objected, the Court would determine whether the claims were reasonable, but if the Trustee did not object, the professional claims would be allowed.  Id. at p. 67, ln. 17-19.

Step 7.  Be Flexible and Willing to Compromise

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Roust demonstrates the importance of flexibility.  A prepack, by its nature, heightens a number of judicial concerns, and those concerns skyrocket when confirmation is sought only seven days after filing.  The Debtors in Roust succeeded in confirming precisely because they were willing to bend on every peripheral issue that was raised.  The Debtors added language to the Plan to resolve nascent objections from White & Case, the largest unsecured creditor, and the IRS.  Judge Drain required at least a dozen clarifications be made in the Plan, all of which the Debtors assented to.  And most notably, the Debtors, in response to Judge Drain’s concerns, volunteered to carve the unsecured creditors entirely out of the third-party releases in the Plan, in order to ensure that the unimpaired status of the unsecured creditors was clear.  Id. at p. 84, ln. 3-8.  Any practitioner wishing to confirm a plan in only seven days must know exactly what the core terms of her Plan are and being willing to concede on everything else.


Ultimately, every case is confirmed on its facts.  In re Roust presents a unique set of facts that may not be widely generalizable.  And although the vast majority of cases will not share the unique facts of In re Roust, those facts were important because they mitigated specific concerns the Court had in confirming a plan shortly after the Petition Date.  Those concerns will be important in any prepack that seeks a speedy confirmation, and the Seven Steps above merely illustrate how these Debtors met them.  It will be interesting to see what creative solutions other debtors craft in the future to address these concerns.

On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion in the case of Trikona Advisers Limited v. Chugh, No. 14-975-cv, 2017 WL 191936 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2017), thwarting an attempt to expand the scope of Chapter 15 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).  Specifically, the Second Circuit held, among other things, that Chapter 15 does not prevent a U.S. District Court from giving preclusive effect to the findings of a foreign court presiding over an insolvency proceeding where the action pending in the U.S. is not connected to the foreign insolvency proceeding.


Trikona involved the demise of Trikona Advisers, Ltd. (“TAL”), an investment advisory company formed in the Cayman Islands in 2006 by Rakshitt Chugh (“Chugh”) and Aashish Kalra (“Kalra”) to assist foreign investors seeking to invest in Indian real estate and infrastructure.  2017 WL 191936, at *1.  Chugh and Kalra each held a fifty percent (50%) equity stake in TAL through entities owned by them: (i) Chugh through ARC Capital LLC (“ARC”) and Haida Investments (“Haida”); and (ii) Kalra through Asia Pacific Investments, Ltd. (“Asia Pacific”).  Id.  The 2008 economic crisis took its toll on TAL, however, and as a result of pressure from shareholders to sell TAL’s assets and a series of failed transactions with a German fund manager, among other things, the relationship between Chugh and Kalra soured.  Id., at *1-*2.  Eventually, TAL ceased to function as a going concern, Chugh was removed as a director without notice and Kalra proceeded to treat TAL and its assets as his own.  Id., at *2.

Procedural History

On February 13, 2012, ARC and Haida filed a petition in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, seeking to “wind up” TAL under the Cayman Islands Companies Law.  2017 WL 191936, at *2.  Asia Pacific opposed the petition by asserting affirmative defenses that Chugh had breached his fiduciary duty to TAL in several ways and that his removal from TAL’s board was justified.  Id.  After seven days of trial in January of 2013, the Cayman court granted Chugh’s petition and rejected each of Kalra’s affirmative defenses, finding that they had “no merit whatsoever.”  Id., at *3.  Kalra appealed the judgment to two separate courts in the Cayman Islands, each of which affirmed the original judgment.  Id.

Two months before the commencement of the Cayman wind-up proceeding, Kalra, through Asia Pacific, had sued Chugh, ARC, and other related corporate entities (collectively, the “Chugh Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “District Court”) alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.  2017 WL 191936, at *3.  The claims “substantially reprised the allegations” that Kalra had asserted as affirmative defenses in the Cayman proceeding.  Id.

In January of 2013, the Chugh Defendants moved for summary judgment in the District Court under the theory of collateral estoppel based on the Cayman judgment.  2017 WL 191936, at *3.  Specifically, the Chugh Defendants argued that because the Cayman court already had made findings of fact in Chugh’s favor with respect to TAL’s collapse, Kalra was collaterally estopped from relitigating those factual disputes.  Id.  On March 6, 2014, the District Court granted the Chugh Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Id.  The District Court also denied a motion for reconsideration filed by TAL (which eventually replaced Asia Pacific as plaintiff), stating that because the affirmative defenses made by Kalra in defending the wind-up petition were “fundamentally the same” as the factual assertions made in the underlying complaint in the District Court, collateral estoppel applied and summary judgment was appropriate.  Id.

Insolvency Principles

Although TAL made five separate arguments on appeal, its assertion regarding Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code is relevant for bankruptcy practitioners to note.  Specifically, TAL asserted that Chapter 15 precluded the District Court from applying collateral estoppel to the findings of fact from the wind-up proceeding.  2017 WL 191936, at *4.  In other words, TAL argued that because an application for recognition of the “foreign proceeding” (i.e., the Cayman proceeding) was not made or pending in the U.S., it was impermissible for the District Court to “recognize” the judgment of the Cayman court.  Id.  The Second Circuit disposed of this argument swiftly, stating that “the requirements of Chapter 15 do not apply here.”  Id.

The Second Circuit’s discussion of Chapter 15 began by explaining that the “primary purpose” of Chapter 15 is to “facilitate the consolidation of multinational bankruptcy into one single proceeding.”  2017 WL 191936, at *4 (citing In re ABC Learning Centres Ltd., 728 F.3d 301, 305-06 (3d Cir. 2013)).  It then identified the four circumstances under which Chapter 15 applies, which are specifically set forth in section 1501(b) of the Bankruptcy Code: (i) assistance sought in the U.S. by a foreign court or a foreign representative in connection with a foreign proceeding; (ii) assistance sought in a foreign country in connection with a case under the Bankruptcy Code; (iii) a foreign proceeding and a case under the Bankruptcy Code with respect to the same debtor are pending concurrently; or (iv) creditors or other interested persons in a foreign country have an interest in requesting the commencement of, or participating in, a case or proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code.  The Second Circuit noted that inherent in those scenarios, however, is the assumption that (i) the U.S. court is being asked either to assist in the administration of a foreign liquidation proceeding itself; or (ii) a foreign court is being asked to assist in administration of a liquidation proceeding in the U.S.  Id., at *5 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1501(b)).  Moreover, the court noted that a Chapter 15 case must be initiated by a “foreign representative” (as defined in section 101(24) of the Bankruptcy Code).  2017 WL 191936, at *5; see also 11 U.S.C. § 101(24).

In Trikona, however, the proceeding in the District Court did not stem from any of the enumerated circumstances set forth in section 1501(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, and the action was not commenced by a “foreign representative” of a foreign proceeding.  2017 WL 191936, at *5.  Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that “Chapter 15 does not apply when a court in the U.S. simply gives preclusive effect to factual findings from an otherwise unrelated foreign liquidation proceeding,” especially because the District Court proceeding was a “non-bankruptcy action, brought in the District of Connecticut and governed by Connecticut law.”  Id.

Notably, the Second Circuit stated in a footnote that if the case involved an attempt to enforce an order entered in a foreign insolvency proceeding, rather than simply to give such an order a preclusive effect, as was done in the District Court, arguably Chapter 15 would have been implicated.  2017 WL 191936, at *5 n.2.  Moreover, in response to TAL’s argument that Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code preempts the state law doctrine of comity, the Second Circuit explained that such a conclusion could not have been the intent of Congress given “the very narrow purpose of Chapter 15.”  Id., at *8.


Although the Second Circuit declined to expand the scope of Chapter 15 beyond its intended purpose, it did create some uncertainty by stating in a footnote that Chapter 15’s precepts may apply in situations where a party to a U.S. proceeding seeks to enforce an order entered by a foreign court presiding over an insolvency proceeding.  Parties involved in U.S. litigation should be reminded, however, that the court strictly applied the language of Chapter 15 by stating that an application for recognition under section 1515 of the Bankruptcy Code must be brought by a “foreign representative,” and that the section does not apply “generally to parties.”  2017 WL 191936, at *5.  TAL, therefore, acted inappropriately by attempting to invoke Chapter 15 in a “non-bankruptcy action . . . unconnected to any foreign or United States bankruptcy proceeding.”  Id.