Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation

Ultra Petroleum Corporation et al. v. Ad Hoc Committee of OpCo Unsecured Creditors,
No. 21-20008 (5th Cir. 2022)

  • Make-whole provisions—common provisions in credit agreements providing for lump sum payments to compensate a lender for unpaid interest if a borrower prepays—have been the subject of litigation concerning whether a claim for a make-whole payment is disallowed under the Bankruptcy Code.
  • In the recent Fifth Circuit decision, Ultra Petroleum Corp. v. Ad Hoc Committee of OpCo Unsecured Creditors,[1] the Court addressed the consequential question against enforceability, holding that make-whole payments are equivalent to impermissible unmatured interest.
  • The Ultra Petroleum decision was the first circuit court case to directly answer the question of whether make-whole payments are generally allowable, and it broke with lower court decisions allowing claims for make-whole payments.

Continue Reading Considering the Allowability of “Make-Whole Payments” in Bankruptcy

On September 8, 2022, the Second Circuit held that lenders to Revlon, Inc., a global cosmetics company, must return approximately $500 million to Citibank N.A., which Citibank had inadvertently paid on Revlon’s behalf. The decision vacated a lower court’s ruling from 2021 that the lenders could retain the funds.

On August 11, 2020, Citibank, as agent under a term loan agreement, intended to process a $7.8 million interest payment by Revlon to its lenders. Instead, Citibank mistakenly wired the entire principal loan balance of nearly $1 billion from Citibank’s own account, giving the lenders a “huge windfall,” per the Second Circuit’s decision.

The next day, after realizing its error, Citibank began sending recall notices to the lenders notifying them of the mistake. Some lenders returned funds, but the defendants did not.
Continue Reading Revlon Lenders Must Return $500 Million Mistaken Wire Transfer to Citibank, N.A.

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

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

Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners LP, the bankrupt limited partnership that did business as Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Foxwoods”), will not be able to recover the $50 million it paid to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for a slot machine license. Foxwoods planned to open a sizable slot machine facility in Philadelphia and paid for the license in 2007 before its location was final. Neighborhood opposition forced substantial delays and when Foxwoods missed a series of deadlines the Board revoked the license in December 2010.

Foxwoods filed for bankruptcy in 2014 after it unsuccessfully tried to get the license back in state court. In bankruptcy court, it brought a fraudulent transfer claim against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to recover the payment it made for the revoked license. The claim was initially dismissed in 2016, remanded on appeal, and then dismissed by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on sovereign immunity grounds. Foxwoods appealed again, arguing it had a property interest in the revoked license. A sovereign immunity defense is not available in cases that further a bankruptcy court’s in rem jurisdiction. In other words, if Foxwoods had a property interest in the revoked license, the claim could move forward.
Continue Reading Recovering a Fraudulent Transfer? A Slot Machine License Is No Safe Bet.

On June 3, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ruled that ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes could not assert attorney-client privilege to block disclosure of her communications with Theranos’s former counsel, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, in connection with her upcoming criminal trial. Judge Cousins found that Holmes had not made it clear to Boies Schiller’s attorneys that she was seeking legal advice in her personal capacity, and as an executive of Theranos. As a result, her communications with Boies Schiller are protected only by Theranos’s corporate privilege, which the company had waived, and therefore could be used at trial against Holmes.
Continue Reading Lessons from US v. Holmes: Limits of the Attorney-Client Privilege in Communications with Corporate Clients and their Executives

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…

On May 11, 2021, Judge Harlin D. Hale dismissed the chapter 11 case filed by the National Rifle Association after finding that it was not filed in good faith. Judge Hale ruled that the case was “filed to gain an unfair litigation advantage” and to “avoid a state regulatory scheme,” which the Court found was “not for a purpose intended or sanctioned by the Bankruptcy Code.”
Continue Reading Texas Bankruptcy Court Dismisses NRA Bankruptcy Cases, Finding They Were Not Filed in Good Faith

A decision in the Delaware District Court allowing nonconsensual third-party releases in plans of liquidation has a surprising origin – the Harvey Weinstein scandal.

In October of 2017, the Weinstein scandal exploded across the nation, bringing to light over 80 sexual assault allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein saw swift retribution: his businesses, The Weinstein Company Holdings and affiliates (the “Weinstein Debtors”), faced multiple lawsuits and filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in March of 2018. Weinstein himself was arrested two months later. The scandal triggered the #MeToo social justice movement, empowering victims of sexual assault and harassment across the globe to voice their claims. Weinstein was ultimately convicted on two felony counts of sexual assault, and the chapter 11 proceeding involving The Weinstein Debtors is drawing to a close in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.
Continue Reading Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases Not Limited to Plans of Reorganization

Herrick congratulates its Restructuring & Finance Litigation Group on the success it has enjoyed over the last two years. The team, which now has 18 members and counting, has grown substantially while taking on a variety of complex litigation matters and Chapter 11 Restructurings. Below is a small sampling of our recent work.
Continue Reading Herrick’s Restructuring & Finance Litigation: 2019-2020 In Review