All posts in Chapter 11

Court Approves $100 million in DIP Financing for American Suzuki

BREA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–American Suzuki Motor Corporation (“ASMC” or “the Company”) today announced that it has received Court approval for Debtor-In-Possession (“DIP”) financing.  As a result, the Company will be able to borrow up to $50 million for operations and up to $50 million for purchases of inventory from Suzuki Motor Corporation (“SMC”).  These funds will help ensure that ASMC has the cash necessary to operate its business during the pendency of the chapter 11 case.  The motion was previously granted Court approval, on an interim basis, on November 7, 2012.  The full article is here.

Some  great hearings coming up Thursday, December 20 in Santa Ana, including approval of the disclosure statement (already) and approval of the bid procedures for the upcoming auction.  The docket is here. 

Revised Fee Guidelines for “Large Cases”

The US Trustee is not backing down on its revised guidelines for fees in large cases.  Large means $50 million or more in assets and $50 million or more in debt.  The guidelines will go into place early next year.  The comments of national director of the US Trustee’s Office, Clifford J. White III, are attached here.  The proposed new guidelines are here.  The comments of the National Bankruptcy Cnference to the latest iteration of the guidelines are here.   

American Suzuki First Day Motions Successful

Nice summary here. 

American Suzuki Case Reassigned to Judge Scott Clarkson

The hearings on the First Day Motions are set for tomorrow, November 7, 2012, in front of Judge Clarkson at 10:30 a.m.

The various motions can be viewed at www.omnimgt.com/asmc.

American Suzuki Files Chapter 11 in Santa Ana

American Suzuki filed chapter 11 in Santa Ana yesterday, November 5, 2012.  The case has been assigned to Judge Catherine Bauer.  Case No. 8:12-bk-22808-CB.  Debra Grassgreen is counsel for the Debtor.  There are (count em) 22 first day motions not including Debra’s Employment App.  My favorite part of the first day motions in these big cases is the Declaration filed to support the motions.  The Declaration filed in this case is attched here.    Suzuki First Day Dec  It has a fantastic amount of information about the company, the problems, the plans, the people etc.  The debtor has some $220 million of assets and $346 million of debts.  It appears the big problem is the autombile division.  The debtor filed a PLAN with everything else which provides essentially that it will sell all of its assets other than the automotive division to a related entity and then wind down the automotive division.

LACBA Program: Absolute Priority Rule for Individual Chapter 11 Cases

Absolute Priority Rule for Individual Chapter 11 Cases

A distinguished panel of four Central District bankruptcy judges and two
highly regarded Chapter 11 bankruptcy practitioners discuss and debate the
current hot topic in bankruptcy law of whether the 2005 bankruptcy act
abolished the absolute priority rule for individuals in Chapter 11 cases. If
it didn’t, does this mean the end of Chapter 11 for individuals? If it did,
does this give individuals too good of a deal in Chapter 11?

Speakers:
Hon. Alan M. Ahart, US Bankruptcy Court
Hon. Theodor C. Albert, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Hon. Scott C. Clarkson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Stanley E. Goldich, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones
Hon. Robert Kwan, U. S. Bankruptcy Court
David Shemano, Peitzman Weg LLP

Moderated By: David A. Tilem, L/O Of David A Tilem

Read more…

Bankruptcy Prof. Ralph Brubaker Takes Apart Absolute Priority Rule Narrow View

Here’s the background:

On Nov 8 the LACBA is doing an evening debate on the Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11 Cases, with participating bankruptcy judges Albert, Ahart, Clarkson and Kwan.  Here’s an interesting update —

Professor Ralph Brubaker of University of Ill. School of Law yesterday published a blistering deconstructive analysis of the narrow view interpretation of the Absolute Priority Rule as it applies to individual chapter 11 debtors at 32 No. 10 Bankruptcy Law Letter 1 entitled, The Absolute Priority Rule for Individual Chapter 11 Debtors: To Be or Not to Be?  It is officially published on Oct. 15, 2012 (but appears on Westlaw now).  He obliterates the narrow view and opines that the 9th Cir. BAP’s In re Friedman was spot on (way to go Scott Clarkson by the way).

It is a magnum opus on the misconceptions being held by those asserting the narrow view, and calls those who adopt the narrow view as having invented a new canon of statutory interpretation called the “Jam it to the Debtor Good and Hard” Canon.  Anyone who knows Brubaker’s work and background will appreciate the significance of this article.  Brubaker is one of the leading authors of Bankruptcy Law textbooks in the nation.

Prof. Brubaker’s article is a MUST READ for anyone wanting to understand the debate.

LACBA Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Program on Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Cases (I assume this will clear everything up!)

Absolute Priority Rule for Individual Chapter 11 Cases
Thursday, November 8, 2012 Registration: 5:30 PM

Dinner: 5:30 PM – 6:30 PM

Program: 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Omni Los Angeles Hotel
251 South Olive Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

2.0 hrs CLE Credit Program Information: Please join us for this review of bankruptcy cases decided in 2011-2012 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Speakers:
Hon. Alan M. Ahart, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Hon. Theodor C. Albert, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Hon. Scott C. Clarkson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Stanley E. Goldich, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones
Hon. Robert R. Kwan, U. S. Bankruptcy Court
David Shemano, Peitzman Weg LLP

Registration Information CLE+ Members (meal not included) FREE Law Students with meal $45.00 CLE+ Plus Members with meal $60.00 Commercial Law & Bankruptcy Committee Section Members $100.00 LACBA Members with meal $120.00 All Others with meal $150.00 2hr CLE Credit Registration Code: 011802

Read more…

Orange County Bankruptcy Forum and Chapman University School of Law Chapter 11 Program

The Orange County Bankruptcy Forum and Chapman University School of Law, Co-Sponsors Present the October 20, 2012, Special Project:

IT’S ALL IN THE NUMBERS:  A Seminar Regarding Some of the Major Financial Issues  that Arise in Chapter 11 Cases. 

Come Learn From Members of the Bankruptcy Court Bench, Top Practitioners and Financial Professionals About How to Handle Issues Including the Preparation of: (1) Cash Collateral Budgets; (2) Plan Feasibility Analyses and Projections; (3) Liquidation Analyses; (4) Operating Reports; and (5) Other Related Issues.  These Topics and Others Will Be Examined from Both the Debtor’s and Creditors’ Perspectives, and Members of the Local Bankruptcy Court Bench Will Give Their Perspectives on These Subjects.

Speakers:

Honorable Scott C. Clarkson – U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge
Honorable Deborah J. Saltzman – U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge
Eric J. Fromme – Rutan & Tucker LLP
Adam Meislik – Glass Ratner Advisory & Capital Group LLC
Todd C. Ringstad – Ringstad & Sanders LLP
Brian S. Weiss – BSW & Associates

Program Committee:  Christopher A. Minier Committee Chair, Beth E. Gaschen, Adam M. Greely & Melissa Davis Lowe

Date/Time:  Saturday, October 20, 2012  8:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.   Continental Breakfast at 8:30 a.m.  Program to Commence at 9:00 a.m.

Location:  Chapman University School of Law One University Drive, Orange

Read more…

New Headache in Chapter 11 – the Prepayment Penalty

Lately I’ve been filing chapter 11 petitions to save real property only to confront the lender’s demand for payment of the prepayment penalty.  The prepayment penalties are literally the total interest to be earned by the lender over the life of the loan less one month.  One lender told me “its not a prepayment penalty, its a “Yield Maintenance Guarantee.”  “And no, we won’t waive it for payment in full right now.”

One case I have proposes to pay the loan according to its original terms other than certain non-monetary defaults which we cannot cure (so the loan is still impaired in the Plan).  The lender, represented by a large well-known firm, insists that it still has the right to the prepayment penalty even though the loan is not going to be prepaid.  The prepayment penalty is roughly 20% of the entire debt and 15% of the value of the property.  In the “Yield Maintenance” case (above), the penalty is $1 million on a property worth $6 million!  That is basically all the equity.

The bigger problem with these cases though is the practical problem.  The lender, by forcing a sale or a foreclosure, gets a windfall and therefore has no motivation to work out a deal, i.e., a consensual plan.  I appreciate the idea that the lender’s view is that it will get the money back and reloan it at lower rates but that can be fixed especially where the original loan, the “Yield” being preserved, is low (although not as low as other loans today).  My gripe, to make it short, is that suddenly these lenders (or at least the law firms they hire who are printing money as long as there is equity for them) are suddenly intransigent because of the windfall they are looking at.

I am filing the first objection to the proof of claim and we’ll see where this goes.  The basis for the objection primarily is that under California law it is an unconscionable penalty.