Independent Examiner in FTX Bankruptcy Case
Firm Serves as Counsel to the Examiner
Two weeks ago, we discussed asset sales under Bankruptcy Code section 363. As that post noted, section 363 requires court approval for asset sales outside the ordinary course of business, with courts ensuring that sales reflect a reasonable business judgment and have an articulated business justification. Debtors may choose to sell assets via a public auction or through a private sale. In our last post, we considered a case where a debtor initially arranged for a public auction and then decided to sell the property via a private sale. What about the reverse case—what if a debtor agrees to sell property to a particular entity via a private sale, but then changes course and decides to hold a public auction instead? On Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered such a case in In re VCR I, LLC, No. 18-60368 (May 1, 2019). The Fifth Circuit held that the prior agreement did not bar the change of course.
VCR I, LLC (“VCR”) filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 in June 2012. Initially, VCR was a debtor in possession, continuing to operate its business. In March 2013, VCR settled litigation with some of its creditors. The settlement agreement required VCR to sell a tract of land to Gluckstadt Holdings, LLC (“Gluckstadt”) for $612,500, and to move for an order authorizing such sale. In October 2013, without any such motion having been filed, the bankruptcy court granted a motion by the United States Trustee to convert the bankruptcy case to a case under chapter 7 and appointed a chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”). In November 2016, the Trustee filed a motion to sell four tracts of land, including the tract at issue, via a public auction. Gluckstadt objected, arguing that the Trustee was bound by the settlement agreement to seek a private sale. The bankruptcy court and the district court sided with the Trustee and approved the sale by auction. Gluckstadt appealed to the Fifth Circuit.[1]
Gluckstadt argued that the settlement agreement was binding and required the Trustee to file a motion for authorization of the private sale, subject only to objections from creditors not bound by the settlement agreement, and not subject to the objections by the Trustee (which was bound by the settlement agreement as the successor-in-interest to VCR). Gluckstadt argued that the Trustee’s decision to seek authorization to conduct a public auction breached the settlement agreement and sought damages.[2]
The Fifth Circuit rejected Gluckstadt’s position. Relying on In re Moore, 608 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2010), and In re Mickey Thompson, 292 B.R. 415 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003), the appeals court held that a settlement agreement involving the sale of a debtor’s property triggers the requirements of section 363: a finding that the Trustee’s business judgment was sound and court approval.
The Fifth Circuit relied particularly on In re Mickey Thompson, which involved a request for approval of a settlement agreement in the face of an offer from a third party to purchase the claims for more than the settlement’s value. In that case, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s approval of the settlement agreement, emphasizing among other things the trustee’s fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the estate, and holding that this fiduciary duty trumped any contractual obligation a trustee may incur in the course of making an agreement subject to court approval (such as the settlement agreement at issue). Following Mickey Thompson, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that here, where the Trustee had concluded that the fair market value of the land substantially exceeded the $612,500 sale price in the settlement agreement, the Trustee was free to pursue a public auction instead of a private sale.
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling underscores that persons dealing with a bankruptcy trustee in a transaction not in the ordinary course of business are charged with the knowledge that any agreement may require court approval and the trustee is obligated to present all relevant facts to the court. An agreement that doesn’t maximize value of the estate may, absent court approval, be overridden by a better deal.
[1] Some of the facts in this paragraph are taken from the bankruptcy court’s original ruling, In re VCR I, LLC, Case No. 1202009EE, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 3341 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2017).
[2] The sale had already taken place by the time of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. Gluckstadt did not seek to invalidate the sale, but simply to obtain damages for breach of contract.
The subject matter jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts causes confusion and can be hard to understand. In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit clarified the meaning of the phrase “related to” in 28 U.S.C. §1334(b), the federal statute that governs the subject matter jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts.[1]
A husband and a wife had settled a state law foreclosure action with their mortgage lender. The couple had agreed to the entry of a consent foreclosure judgment. But one day before the scheduled foreclosure sale, the wife filed for chapter 11. The wife and the mortgage lender then reached another agreement to resolve their dispute regarding the real property. That agreement was embodied in the wife’s plan that the bankruptcy court confirmed. But the wife didn’t comply with those terms, and the property was sold post-confirmation through a foreclosure sale.
Shortly after the sale, the husband brought a state court action against the mortgage lender and the buyer of the real property, asserting various contract and tort claims. The defendants removed the action to the bankruptcy court, but that court dismissed the complaint. The judge invoked its jurisdiction on the ground that the husband’s claims were inextricably intertwined with the wife’s bankruptcy proceeding. The district court affirmed the dismissal, and the husband appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
A bankruptcy court exercises jurisdiction derivative of and dependent upon a district court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1334 prescribes the rule governing subject matter jurisdiction of district courts regarding bankruptcy related matters. §1334(b) provides three categories of claims that fall within subject matter jurisdiction of district courts: 1) civil proceedings “arising under title 11,” more commonly known as the “Bankruptcy Code,” 2) civil proceedings “arising in . . . cases under title 11,” and 3) civil proceedings “related to cases under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. §157(a) allows a district court to refer those matters to a bankruptcy court in the same district. In the Kachkar case, the Eleventh Circuit held that the husband’s complaint was “related to” the wife’s bankruptcy case and therefore was within subject matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.
Under the Eleventh Circuit law, a civil proceeding, at minimum, must have some nexus with a bankruptcy case to be “related to” the case. Typically, the nexus inquiry would ask whether the potential outcome of the civil proceeding would “conceivably have an effect” on the estate in the bankruptcy case.[2] Acknowledging that it has not addressed the scope of “related to” jurisdiction in the post-confirmation context in a published opinion yet, the Eleventh Circuit decided this case by citing a Third Circuit decision, which held that “matters that affect the interpretation, consummation, execution, or administration of the confirmed plan will typically have the requisite close nexus.”[3] The husband’s complaint alleged violations of several bankruptcy court orders entered in the wife’s bankruptcy case, including the plan confirmation order. The Eleventh Circuit opined that a favorable outcome for such allegations would at least conceivably call into question the resolution of certain matters in the wife’s bankruptcy case, and such relationship constituted a nexus sufficient to establish the “related to” jurisdiction. Therefore, the husband’s complaint fell within subject matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.
We now address assets sales under Bankruptcy Code section 363. The statute allows debtors to use, sell, or lease their property in the ordinary course of business without court permission. But a debtor’s use, sale, or lease of property outside the ordinary course of business requires court approval. And courts will usually approve a debtor’s disposition of property if it reflects the debtor’s reasonable business judgment and an articulated business justification.
Property of value is often sold in bankruptcy by public auction. Debtors will try to find a so-called “stalking horse” bidder to set the base price. Procedures approved by the bankruptcy court will set bid increments above the initial one. If the stalking horse loses the auction, it will likely receive a “break-up” fee to cover its cost of due diligence. The winning bidder is the one who will have made the highest and best offer.
But debtors do not have to sell property solely by public auction. They can hold private sales as well. But assume a debtor notices and starts a public auction. Can the debtor switch in mid-stream to a private sale and ignore other bidders?
This issue arose recently in a case in Florida. In re Royal Palm, LLC, No. 9:19-cv-80343, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61611 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2019). In August 2018, the owner of a hotel that was under construction filed chapter 11. The debtor retained a national real estate firm to market the property. A stalking horse bidder was identified, the base price was set at $32 million, the court approved bidding procedures, and an auction was scheduled for November 2018.
But these plans got sidetracked by litigation involving the debtor, a former owner of the hotel, and foreign investors. In addition, the former owner sought to credit bid a claim it held against the debtor’s estate at the auction and have that claim estimated.[i] While motion practice on these two issues moved forward, the auction was adjourned a month. Discovery on the motions caused more delay. Over four days in early 2019, the bankruptcy court heard the credit-bid and estimation motions. Then, in early February 2019, the bid deadline and auction were rescheduled again, for March 2019.
That’s where the matter stood in late February 2019 when the debtor changed its plans. It made a motion to sell the hotel in a private sale to an entity that would pay $39.6 million. No one else but the stalking horse would be allowed to bid. The public auction bidding procedures would be withdrawn.
The bankruptcy court approved the new procedures. In mid-March 2019, the court approved a sale to the new bidder (not the stalking horse) free of all liens, claims, and encumbrances. After the private sale was approved, the former owner (who had been shut out of the bidding) appealed to the federal district court. The former owner challenged the withdrawal of the public auction procedures, the approval of the private auction procedures, and the bankruptcy court’s approval of the private sale.
Less than a month after the appeal was filed, the district court ruled for the debtor on all issues. The court said there was “nothing in the record to overcome the deference that is owed to the Debtor’s business judgment and the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact.” 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61611, *13. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg added that the “record reveals that the Debtor had actively marketed the property, employed an international real estate broker to help sell the property, and had been continuously working towards that sale since as early as October 2018.” Id., *14. In addition, Judge Rosenberg noted, “[i]n particular, the Bankruptcy Court did not clearly err in crediting the Debtor’s manager’s . . . testimony regarding the Debtor’s ‘extensive marketing’ of the property and his conclusion that the [private sale] offer was worthy of pursuit.” Id. Significantly, the court said, “private sales are not unheard of in bankruptcy and in fact are expressly contemplated by the rules. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6004(f)(1).” Id., *16.
The former hotel owner said it would have offered $1 million more than the private-sale bid. But the court noted that the highest bid isn’t necessarily the best. Id., *20. The elimination of other bids “was subject to the Debtor’s business judgment.” The private sale gave the debtor “finality [and] certainty” with a higher price than the stalking horse bid. Id. *16. “[T]o force the Debtor to forgo the [accepted private-sale] offer and subject itself to a public auction would require this Court to use its own business judgment in place of the Debtor’s, which this Court will not do.” Id., *22.
Thus, on these facts, both the bankruptcy court and the district court ruled that the debtor could abandon a public auction in favor of a private sale and still satisfy the requirements of Bankruptcy Code section 363. We will watch to see if the district court’s decision is appealed to the Court of Appeals and, if so, report on future developments.
[i] Credit bidding is a secured creditor’s right to bid the amount owed to it rather than pay with cash.
The attorneys in Patterson Belknap‘s Business Reorganization and Creditors' Rights practice group offer our clients a broad array of experience and skills managing, mitigating, and monetizing every kind of financial distress. Our clients include indenture trustees, banks, creditors’ committees, examiners, developers, manufacturers, licensors, and other businesses, partnerships, individuals, and foreign and domestic government agencies. We assist them in bankruptcy matters, bankruptcy-related litigation, out-of-court workouts, and many other special situations.
Bankruptcy Proceedings
Patterson Belknap plays a variety of roles in hundreds of bankruptcy cases nationwide. We represent secured and unsecured creditors, landlords and tenants, creditors’ committees and court-appointed trustees in corporate reorganizations under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, liquidations under Chapter 7, cross-border proceedings under Chapter 15, and municipal bankruptcy cases under Chapter 9. A few examples of the Firm’s diverse work include:
Financial Distress Outside of Bankruptcy: Workouts, Acquisitions and Troubled Loans
Patterson Belknap regularly represents parties engaging in transactions (particularly financings, purchases and sales, and franchising) with distressed companies outside of and prior to the commencement of a bankruptcy case. The firm offers advice on structuring transactions to avoid or minimize risks resulting from the subsequent insolvency or bankruptcy of the distressed party. Patterson Belknap also represents secured lenders and borrowers in connection with the restructuring of lending arrangements involving financially illiquid or distressed companies. Some examples include:
Multidisciplinary Approach
Financial distress, insolvency and bankruptcy can occur in every sector, in different economic climates, and anywhere in the world. So our diverse nationwide and international practice spans a broad range of industries in foreign and domestic jurisdictions around the world. The attorneys in Patterson Belknap‘s Business Reorganization and Creditors' Rights practice group are able to provide efficient service without sacrificing the resources of a larger firm: we regularly partner with colleagues who focus on litigation, internal investigations, real estate, and tax, to provide our clients with the full panoply of services required to mitigate and manage the risks associated with financial distress.
Litigation
Patterson Belknap is particularly known for its active and effective litigation in bankruptcy court. It represents several major corporations in preference and related bankruptcy litigation on a coast-to-coast basis, but concentrates in handling complex litigation arising from bankruptcy cases. Noteworthy matters include:
Investigations
Patterson Belknap, well known for its investigative work, serves a substantial number of financial institutions and major corporations with sensitive internal and external matters requiring independent scrutiny. This work extends into the bankruptcy and debtor-creditor area. The firm’s attorneys have frequently been called upon to perform investigations and to act swiftly to maximize recovery on behalf of creditors, creditors’ committees or trustees in bankruptcies and workout cases involving allegations of fraud and embezzlement. Representative matters include:
Real Estate
Patterson Belknap’s debtor-creditor practice often comes together with the firm’s Real Estate practice to assist landlords, lenders, developers and others in efforts to restructure troubled real estate projects. The firm also handles foreclosure and related bankruptcy litigation. Some noteworthy matters include:
Pro Bono
Finally, like all of Patterson Belknap’s lawyers, the attorneys in the Business Reorganization and Creditors' Rights practice group take seriously their commitment to providing pro bono legal services. By partnering with legal service organizations throughout New York, the firm regularly serves low-income and indigent clients who might not otherwise have access to high quality legal representation. Recent matters include: