Bankruptcy & Restructuring

Over the summer, we wrote about why health care companies may want to consider buying assets out of bankruptcy, taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (a "363 Sale”). We are back with our second post, to provide more detail to the process and discuss some pros and cons of 363 Sales.

As a refresher, a 363 Sale couples a flexible and fast process with ample liability protection for willing buyers. The primary benefit of a 363 Sale is that a buyer can acquire the debtor’s assets free and clear of virtually all liens, claims, and interests burdening the assets and the debtor. And when Section 363 is coupled with the “assumption and assignment” provisions of Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is able to assign most contracts or leases that a buyer may wish to purchase, including contracts with ironclad anti-assignment language, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. When a target is experiencing severe financial distress, the benefit of acquiring assets “free and clear” is extraordinarily valuable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed that bankruptcy plans need not always recognize subordination agreements among creditors.

Although health care may be well positioned to weather an economic downturn as an industry, certain sectors, including ambulatory surgery, vision, dermatology, dental, and other physician practices will bear the brunt of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and patients delaying non-emergency care. While the onset of COVID-19 has delayed or derailed many transactions, strategic buyers should consider all of the different transaction tools available them to help maximize value and successfully get to closing. For knowledgeable investors and strategic buyers, now is the time to position yourself to acquire valuable health care assets at steep discounts.

For those unfamiliar with 363 Sales, a 363 Sale couples a flexible and fast process with ample liability protection for willing buyers. The primary benefit to a 363 Sale is that a buyer can acquire the debtor’s assets free and clear of virtually all liens, claims and encumbrances burdening the assets and the debtor. When a target is experiencing severe financial distress, the benefit of acquiring assets “free and clear of all liens” is extraordinarily valuable.

Businesses in a wide range of industries may now be forced to consider bankruptcy given the unprecedented economic challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This advisory is designed to provide a high-level view of issues to be considered by human resources when considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Leveraged loans continue to be a topic of interest in the current environment, particularly when they are pooled and securitized as collateralized loan obligations. A recent decision sheds light on whether and when leveraged loans and similar instruments may be classified as securities and, therefore, be subject to securities laws.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt businesses and markets, and companies begin to look to bankruptcy courts for relief from the resulting liquidity and operational distress, the issue of creditor and shareholder “blocking rights” seems likely to become an important topic as parties attempt to protect their investments.

With courts and government agencies around the world enacting emergency measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic – ranging from complete shutdowns to delays and limitations – advancing the ball in dispute resolution is more challenging than ever.

In a recent decision addressing valuation issues, the First Circuit has issued an important reminder – and warning – to creditors seeking to establish a secured claim in settlement proceeds based on a security interest in the settled claim. In short, the key lesson for would-be secured creditors is this – the value of a claim is not equal to the value of damages!

Read about the pros and cons for private company buyers seeking to purchase distressed targets through a formal bankruptcy process in the post–COVID-19 era plus strategies for success.

President Trump signed the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”) into law in August of last year and it became effective on February 20, 2020. The SBRA amended the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and is designed to simplify and shorten the reorganization process for “small businesses” and to make the entire process more cost effective.

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (the “CARES Act”), a $2+ trillion stimulus package intended to ease the economic and social disruptions facing the country in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Below is an update on legislative efforts by Congress and the White House to address the coronavirus pandemic, prepared by our D.C. colleagues at ML Strategies, who are closely following these fluid and fast-moving developments. Efforts to provide a supply of low cost working capital to the many businesses and entities experiencing operational and/or cash flow disruption may be of particular interest to our bondholder clients.

Many equity sponsors are both shareholders and lenders to their portfolio companies.  In that hybrid case, where the shareholder is also a creditor, can the shareholder enforce corporate governance provisions which restrict the ability of the company to file for bankruptcy?  A recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has answered that question in the affirmative - with caveats. 

In French v. Linn Energy, L.L.C. (In re Linn Energy, L.L.C.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the scope of Bankruptcy Code Section 510(b), settling on an expansive reading of the Section, holding that a claim for “deemed dividends” should be subordinated.

Transfers and transactions up to ten years old may be scrutinized, unwound and recovered by a trustee, the bankruptcy court sitting in Massachusetts recently held in the NECCO (think chalky wafer candy) bankruptcy case. The ruling, in a case of first impression in Massachusetts, expands the reach back period from the typical four-year period for fraudulent transfer recovery, so long as the IRS is a creditor in the case. 

On May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a trademark license agreement under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not terminate the licensee’s rights to continue to use the trademark.  The decision, issued in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolved a split among the Circuits, but may spawn additional issues regarding non-debtor contractual rights in bankruptcy. 

As many of our readers know, we have been closely following the Polukoff False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam case in the Tenth Circuit for the lessons it might offer in defending FCA cases premised on allegations related to lack of medical necessity (among other topics).  Recently, we had the opportunity to consider this case from a different angle: the lessons it might offer to bankruptcy counsel advising clients who are or have been the subject of a health care fraud investigation and/or FCA qui tam case.