In re Compute North Holdings, Inc., No. 22-90273 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)

  • The bankruptcy court approved a portion of proposed bid procedures for the sale of Compute North.
  • Debtors sought an expedited sale timeline, with bids due by October 27, 2022, but the Compute North UCC objected. The parties agreed the sale timeline would be addressed at an October 21 hearing. 
  • Compute North contractual counterparties objected, seeking favorable carveouts and clarifications in the approved sale procedure, which were also pushed to the October 21 hearing. 
  • Other provisions of the sale procedure were approved including bid protections for a stalking horse and contract assumption notice procedures. 


Continue Reading Sale Procedures for 363 Sale of Compute North Partially Approved With Timing of Sale to Be Addressed at Supplemental Hearing

Restructuring and Finance Litigation partner Steven B. Smith recently met with Phil Neuffer, the Managing Editor of ABF Journal, to discuss the recent United States Supreme Court decision Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, in which the Court unanimously held that a significant quarterly  fee increase applicable to debtors in the United States Trustee

Last November, Judge John Dorsey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court held in the Mallinckrodt chapter 11 case that the debtors did not have to pay a $94 million “make-whole” premium that was provided for in an indenture governing first lien notes. The indenture provides for automatic acceleration following an Event of Default, which includes a bankruptcy filing. Acceleration makes “the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on all the Notes . . . immediately due and payable . . . .”

A “make-whole” premium is a loan provision to compensate a lender if a borrower repays the debt before maturity for the loss of the lender’s anticipated yield, and can also be called “yield maintenance,” or a “redemption” or “prepayment” premium. The make-whole amount is typically the net present value of the interest payments that the lender would have received if the debt was paid at maturity. While make-whole premiums are generally enforceable under state law outside of bankruptcy, courts have rendered conflicting decisions on their enforceability in chapter 11. Economics drives the continuing bankruptcy court litigation over make-whole payments. For large bond issues, the make-whole amounts can often exceed nine figures.
Continue Reading Landmark Delaware Bankruptcy Court Ruling that Debtors Did Not Have to Pay Make-Whole Premium Was in Error, First Lien Lenders’ Argue on Appeal

The introduction in 2020 of subchapter V for small business chapter 11 cases was the biggest structural reform in business bankruptcies since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. Subchapter V was enacted in 2019 as part of the Small Business Reorganization Act and became effective in February 2020.  It was originally limited to cases with $2,725,625 or less in debt, but when Congress passed the CARES Act in 2020 in response to the COVID pandemic, it increased the subchapter V debt limit to $7.5 million. While that increase was originally scheduled to expire on March 27, 2021, it was extended through March 27, 2022.

Now there appears to be bipartisan support in Washington for making the $7.5 million debt limit permanent. Senator Charles Grassley, a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has had a long interest in reforms of the Bankruptcy Code, has said that he supports a permanent revision in the debt limit.
Continue Reading Congress May Consider Making $7.5 Million Debt Limit for Subchapter V Permanent: Should the Limit Be Increased?

The Supreme Court declined to take up a case this month concerning the doctrine of equitable mootness, a topic that continues to rile bankruptcy courts and generate controversy amongst practitioners and scholars. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently described the doctrine as one that is “misleadingly” labeled, but which allows courts to dismiss an appeal from a bankruptcy court’s ruling because the appeal has been rendered moot due to “equitable, prudential, or pragmatic considerations.” In most situations, the appeal is “equitably” moot because the bankruptcy court’s order has already been implemented by the debtor by the time the appeal is heard. Meanwhile, in bankruptcy cases big and small, appeals primarily from confirmation plans are focused on the issue. With Courts of Appeals divided on the issue, it will continue to generate objections, expedited appeals, and uncertainty going forward.
Continue Reading Equitable Mootness Doctrine Will Continue to Generate Controversy After Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal on the Issue

On September 23, 2021, United States Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced the Bankruptcy Venue Reform Act of 2021 (the “Venue Reform Act”), which would tighten the Bankruptcy Code’s venue rules for corporate debtors. A corporate filer would be limited to the district containing its principal place of business or the district where its principal assets have been located for the preceding 180 days. For a public company, the location listed in its SEC filings would be its presumptive principal place of business. The Venue Reform Act is intended to eliminate forum shopping by corporate debtors seeking to file their chapter 11 cases in traditionally debtor-friendly courts.  

This blog post describes some of the main changes that would go into effect if the Venue Reform Act were approved. The full text of the proposed Venue Reform Act may be found here: https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL21A87.pdf 
Continue Reading What the Bankruptcy Venue Reform Act of 2021 Could Mean for Corporate Debtors

Federal district court judge Paul Gardephe recently spared Keleil Isaza Tuzman from additional jail time, despite Tuzman’s December 2017 convictions for securities and mail fraud, the latest twist in the long, strange saga of KIT Digital. Tuzman was the founder and former CEO of KIT Digital Inc., a publicly traded software startup that offered video management products, but which ended up bankrupt and is now called Piksel Inc. The US Attorney sought a prison term of 17.5-22 years for Tuzman.

Tuzman, and co-defendant Omar Amanat, who was sentenced to five years in jail and fined $175,000, were convicted on multiple counts of manipulating the stock price for KIT Digital and for defrauding investors in a hedge fund known as Maiden Capital.
Continue Reading Judge Spares Ex-CEO of Bankrupt KIT Digital from Additional Jail Time

On May 22, 2020, amidst the deepest possible gloom about COVID-19’s impact on travel, the car rental giant, Hertz Global, filed for Chapter 11. According to reporting by Barrons,[1] during the reorganization, Hertz drastically cut the size of its fleet and closed locations. Like most shareholders of bankrupt companies, Hertz owners were likely to

In re Concepts America, Inc., 625 B.R. 881 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2021), weighs in on a murky question: Can a creditor make an administrative expense priority claim because it made a substantial contribution in a case under chapter 7? The court answered no.

In Concepts America, creditor Galleria Mall Investors LP moved the bankruptcy court for allowance and payment of an administrative expense claim pursuant to sections 503(b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(D), and (b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Around May 2011, the Galleria entered into a lease with a restaurant affiliated with Concepts America, which guaranteed the lease. The restaurant eventually breached the lease, and a Texas state court entered judgment against the restaurant and Concepts America.

The Galleria tried to collect its judgment for nearly a year. Eventually, on September 19, 2014, it joined two other creditors in filing an involuntary chapter 7 petition against Concepts America. About two months later, Concepts America consented to the entry of an order for relief under chapter 7.
Continue Reading Illinois Bankruptcy Court Weighs In on Chapter 7 Substantial Contribution Claims

Brooks Brothers’ minority shareholders and unsecured creditors, TAL Apparel Ltd. (“TAL Apparel”) and its subsidiary Castle Apparel Ltd. (“Castle”), recently brought an action against the men’s retailer’s former owners, the Del Vecchio family. TAL Apparel and Castle allege bad faith and more than $100 million in damages for losses arising from