"Make-Whole Premium" Claims Are Akin To Claims For Liquidated Damages, Not Claims For Unmatured Interest And Are Therefore, Not Subject to Disallowance, But Rather Allowable Unsecured Claims

In re: Trico Marine Services, Inc., Case No. 10-12653 (BLS) (April 15, 2011) (J. Shannon)

The Court was asked to decide the Debtors’ motion (the “Motion”) to determine the validity and priority of a certain make-whole premium (the “Make-Whole Premium”). In 1999, Debtor Trico Marine International issued notes (the “Obligation”) to finance the construction of two supply vessels (the “Vessels”). The Obligation was governed by the terms of a trust indenture (the “Indenture”) between TMI and Bank One Trust Company, N.A., the predecessor-in-interest to the indenture trustee Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (the “Indenture Trustee”).

The Indenture provided that the Obligation was subject to semi-annual mandatory sinking fund redemption payments (the “Mandatory Redemption Payments”). The Indenture was not secured by any of the Debtors’ property. Rather, the Obligation was guaranteed by the U.S Secretary of Transportation, on behalf of the Maritime Administration (“MARAD”) under the terms of a guarantee (the “Guarantee”).

Following the Petition Date, the Debtors liquidated certain assets and sold the Vessels (the “Sale”). In exchange for its consent to the Sale, MARAD required the Debtors to redeem the Obligation in full to ensure that the Indenture Trustee would not call upon the Guarantee. Upon closing of the Sale, the Debtors caused the Indenture Trustee to receive a payoff of $4,555,489 (the “Payoff”). 

Under the terms of the Indenture, the Obligation was also subject to the optional Make-Whole Premium that matured only if and when TMI elected, at its option, to redeem the Obligation, “in whole or in part, at any time, at the redemption prices.” The Indenture Trustee sought full and immediate payment of the Make-Whole Premium out of the Sale proceeds held in escrow.  Based upon the date of redemption, the Indenture Trustee asserted that the Make-Whole Premium owed was $511,849.01. 

Discussion:

The Debtors’ motion sought a determination that the Make-Whole Premium was not an allowable claim because it was an unmatured interest subject to disallowance under section 502(b)(2). In the alternative, the Debtors asserted that the Make-Whole Premium was, at best, a general unsecured claim – not covered by the Guarantee and therefore, not subject to MARAD’s lien under the Security Agreement.

The Court agreed with the Debtors’ alternative argument. The Court concluded that make-whole or prepayment obligations are in the nature of liquidated damages rather than an unmatured interest. The Guarantee did not cover the Make-Whole Premium. 

Furthermore, the Sale Order did not entitle the Indenture Trustee to full and immediate payment out of the reserved funds in the MARAD Escrow. The Court refused to interpret the Sale Order to allow the Indenture a new, senior lien. Rather, The Indenture Trustee was only entitled to its pro rata distribution under the Debtors’ plan for reorganization on account of its general unsecured claim for the Make-Whole Premium, to the extent that such claim was allowed. 

Forum Selection Clause Did Not Apply To Core Matter; Motion To Dismiss Denied.

Charys Liquidating Trust v. McMahan Securities Co. (In re Charys Holding Company, Inc.), Case No. 08-10289 (BLS), Adv. No. 10-50213 (BLS) (August 27, 2010) (J. Shannon)

On or about October 11, 2006, Charys Holding Company, Inc. (“Charys”) entered into an agreement (the “Engagement Letter”) with McMahan Securities Co. (“McMahan” or “Defendant”) whereby McMahan agreed to serve as Charys’s “exclusive financial advisor and placement agent” in connection with a private placement by Charys of up to $150 million in senior convertible notes (the “Notes”).  The Engagement Letter also provided McMahan the option, which McMahan exercised, to place an additional 15% on the amount of the offering.  Charys later entered into an indenture agreement with the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee, and then issued $201,250,000.00 of Notes (the “McMahan Financing”).

Pursuant to the Engagement Letter, McMahan was to receive a fee of 4% of the gross proceeds of a placement up to $75 million, and 5% of aggregate gross proceeds in excess of $75 million, for a total of $9,312,500.00 on the proceeds, which equaled $201,250,000.00.  However, McMahan withheld $9,957,000.00 from Charys’s portion of the initial proceeds of $175 million and $1,434,635.42 from Charys’s portion of the additional proceeds of $26,250,000.00 (collectively, the “Transfers”), for a total of $11,391,635.42. 

Charys, along with Crochet & Borel Services, Inc. (together, the “Debtors”), filed for bankruptcy on February 14, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).  Once the plan was confirmed, two trusts (the Charys Liquidating Trust and the C&B Liquidating Trust, collectively referred to as the “Trusts” or the “Plaintiffs”) were established and certain of the Debtor’s assets, including avoidance actions, were transferred to the Trusts.  The Trusts instituted the instant adversary proceeding on February 12, 2010, in which it sought the difference between the amount agreed upon and the amount transferred to McMahan and alleged that McMahan’s fees exceeded the prevailing market rate for comparable investment banking services.

McMahan responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that that: (1) the Engagement Letter contained a forum selection clause requiring the action to be commenced and litigated in Connecticut state court; (2) Charys failed to plead sufficient facts to establish its claims; and (3) Charys’s admission that the Transfers were made on account of an antecedent debt proved that the Transfers were in exchange for reasonably equivalent value.  The Trusts filed a response and an amended complaint.  McMahan filed a reply, and the Court declined to hear oral argument on the matter.

Continue Reading...

Delaware Chapter 11 Filings - 2009

Commercial Chapter 11 case filings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in 2009:

Continue Reading...

No Exception to Mutual Debt Requirement - Triangular Setoff Denied

In re Semcrude, L.P., 2009 WL 68873 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 9, 2009) (Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon)

Chevron entered into pre-petition contracts with SemCrude, L.P., SemFuel, L.P., and SemStream, L.P. for the sale or purchase of crude oil, regular unleaded gasoline, and/or butane, isobutene and propane. The sale/purchase agreements all contained netting provisions that provided that if either party failed to meet its payment or delivery obligations, then the other party could offset any deliveries or overdue payments against the defaulting party or any of its affiliates. It was undisputed that the three debtors were affiliates of each other. As of the petition date, Chevron owed a balance of approximately $1.4 million to SemCrude, L.P. However, Chevron was owed approximately $10.2 million by SemFuel, L.P. and $3.3 million by SemStream, L.P. Chevron Products Company (“Chevron”) moved for relief from the automatic stay to effect a triangular setoff of these debts owed between it and three separate debtors. 

Continue Reading...

Delaware Chapter 11 Filings - 2008

Commercial Chapter 11 case filings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in 2008:

Continue Reading...

Court Holds That Funds Collected From Amp'd Mobile Customers for Insurance on Cellphones Are Property of the Estate, and Not Held in Trust for Insurer

Asurion Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Amp’d Mobile, Inc. (In re Amp’d Mobile, Inc.),  377 B.R. 478  (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon)

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied a vendor’s request for a determination that funds that the debtor received in connection with a contract between the parties were not property of the estate, and that such funds were held in a constructive trust. The vendor, Asurion Insurance Services, Inc., was party to an agreement with the debtor to offer insurance to the debtor’s customers against loss or damage to the participating customers’ cellular phones. The Court found that there was no fiduciary relationship between Asurion and the debtor so as to warrant a finding that the premium payments the debtor received from its customers were anything other then property of the debtor’s estate.

Continue Reading...

Delaware Chapter 11 Filings - 2007

Commercial Chapter 11 case filings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in 2007:

Continue Reading...

When Is Failure to Disclose Ownership of a License Plate Indicative of Bad Faith Chapter 7 Filing?

In re Murray, 377 B.R. 464 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Brendan L. Shannon)

Although our purpose here at the Delaware Business Bankruptcy Report is to provide news and commentary on commercial bankruptcy cases here in Delaware, the Court published an opinion this week in a consumer case that we want to share with our readers. First, a little background information is helpful. In Delaware, license plates are freely transferable.  There is a vigorous trade in low-digit license plates. The most coveted plates of all are those with a single digit. Similarly, two-digit and three-digit plates are hot commodities that can sell for eye popping prices.

Continue Reading...

Court Denies Landlord's Request for Section 365(d)(3) Treatment for Obligations Incurred Pre-Petition But Invoiced Post-Petition

In re Pac-West Telecomm, Case No. 07-10562 (BLS), -- B.R. --, 2007 WL 2910093 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 5, 2007) (Judge Brendan L. Shannon)

Debtor Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. commenced its bankruptcy case on April 30, 2007. Carlyle One Wilshire II, L.P., a landlord of the debtor, filed a motion under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) to compel the debtor to pay amounts allegedly coming due post-petition under the leases between the parties. The motion related to two sets of charges. The first was to recapture amounts undercharged for electricity usage prior to the commencement of the case. The second was for late charges and attorneys’ fees allegedly owing under the leases.  The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the request for payment under section 365(d)(3), finding that the amounts invoiced were pre-petition obligations of the debtor.

Continue Reading...

Fedders Bankruptcy Case Files in Delaware

Fedders North America, Inc. and sixteen affiliated debtors, including its parent company, the Fedders Corporation filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in Delaware earlier today. Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon will preside over these cases.

Continue Reading...

Amp'd Mobile, Inc. Files Chapter 11 Petition

On June 1, 2007, Amp’d Mobile, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon has been assigned to the case.

 

Amp’d, a provider of mobile phone and entertainment services, proposes to continue to operate out of cash collateral while continuing to seek debtor-in-possession financing.  On June 5, 2007, Judge Shannon approved the debtor’s cash collateral motion on an interim basis, pending a final hearing on June 20, 2007.

Continue Reading...

InSight Health Services files Chapter 11 Petition; Proposes Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization

On May 29, 2007, InSight Health Services Holdings Corp. (Case No. 07-10700) and InSight Health Services Corp. (Case No. 07-10701) filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Code for the District of Delaware for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The debtors are proposing a prepackaged plan that effects a debt to equity swap to alleviate the burdens upon the debtors from extensive senior subordinated note debts. 

Continue Reading...

Equity Committee Appointed in Hancock Fabrics Case

On May 22, 2007, United States Trustee Kelly Beudin Stapleton appointed an Official Committee of Equity Security Holders in the Hancock Fabrics, Inc. case (07-10353 (BLS)). The members of the committee are Berg & Berg Enterprises LLC of Cupertino, California, Trellus Management of New York and Warren B. Kanders of Stamford, Connecticut. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal of New York and Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP of Wilmington, Delaware will serve as counsel to the equity committee. Continue Reading...

Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. and Various Affiliates File Chapter 11 Petitions

Yesterday, April 30, 2007, Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. and certain related entities filed chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  The case has been assigned case number 07-10562.  The petition lists assets of approximately $54 million and liabilities of approximately $66 million.

Other filing entities are PWT of New York, Inc., PWT Services, Inc., Pac-West Telecomm of Virginia, Inc., Installnet, Inc., and U.S. Net Solutions, Inc.

Court Denies Motion To Reject Settlement Agreement

In re LG Philips Displays USA, Inc., Case No 06-10245 (BLS), 2006 WL 1748671 (Bankr. D. Del. June 21, 2006) (Judge Brendan L. Shannon)

Debtor moved to reject a settlement agreement under which debtor conveyed option to purchase real estate, as the Debtor wished to purchase the property itself. The party holding the purchase option objected to the motion. The Court denied the motion, holding that the settlement agreement was not an executory contract that could be rejected under the Bankruptcy Code.

Continue Reading...