Over the past decade, there have been several court rulings on whether particular compensation bonuses should be allowed as part of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy, such as Momentive,1 EFH,2 American Airlines,3 and Ultra Petroleum.4 While these and other decisions set out the legal standards to be applied and resolve the specific claims at issue, the decisions provide little guidance or clarity on the admissibility of comprehensive claims in future cases. In a recent decision in the Hertz bankruptcy cases,5 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed some relief claims, but denied others, continuing that uncertainty for future situations.
Offset premiums are amounts that the borrower/issuer is contractually obligated to meet, in addition to the full amount of obligations otherwise outstanding, if they choose to repay loans or repay obligations before their scheduled maturities. These premiums are designed to compensate lenders and bondholders for the loss of anticipated yield and are most often based on a formula tied to the present value of future interest payments that the borrower/issuer avoids by repaying the anticipated debt. Bankruptcy courts look to state law to determine whether such claims should be allowed as part of a bankruptcy claim.
In general, for a contract repair premium to have a chance of being recoverable in bankruptcy, it must be due and payable according to the wording of the underlying loan document or deed of obligation. Then, assuming the documentation authorizes the creditor for such recovery, various additional steps might be necessary, such as an analysis to determine whether the particular relief at issue could constitute a penalty (in which case it would not be recoverable) or whether it would be more appropriate to characterize them as damages (which may be recoverable in certain circumstances). In bankruptcy, courts also sometimes require that the set-off premium not be considered “unmatured interest”, which is specifically prohibited in a bankruptcy action under Section 502(b). ) (2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Decision of the bankruptcy court in Hert
Hertz, the car rental company, filed for bankruptcy in May 2020, after its revenue plummeted following the COVID-19 pandemic. The company considered several exit strategies and ultimately agreed on a reorganization plan that would fully repay its outstanding funded debt. The issue that resulted in litigation was whether the holders of various series of unsecured notes were entitled to payment of contractual compensation premium claims as part of this full payment.6
As part of a motion to dismiss such litigation, the
Hertz The court focused on the first criterion to determine whether a compensatory bonus should be authorized in the event of bankruptcy, that is, whether the wording of the trust indentures provided for such a payment in the circumstances. The indentures for certain Notes provided that the make-up premiums would become due and payable if there was a redemption prior to “maturity”. These notes automatically accelerated upon filing for bankruptcy, and so the court ruled that the subsequent repayment under the reorganization plan at the end of the bankruptcy case did not trigger a repair premium, as the notes had already “matured” as a result of filing for bankruptcy.7
The indentures of certain other notes provided that the make-up premiums would become due upon redemption at any time prior to a specified date, rather than at maturity. Since this certain date had not yet occurred, the court ruled that the compensation premium had been earned when the notes had been redeemed under the scheme and therefore met this allocation threshold. The court then noted that such claims could still be dismissed if the compensatory premium were to be determined to constitute the economic equivalent of the unearned interest, and the court requested additional factual evidence from the parties on this point.8
The main takeaway from Hertz and other decisions referenced herein that may shed light on how courts will handle offset premium disputes in future bankruptcy cases is that such claims have no chance of being allowed. unless the applicable provisions permitting such claims permit creditors to such amounts. under the circumstances. Beyond that, any future forensic analysis will depend heavily on events and facts that have not yet occurred. For these reasons, interested parties should be careful not to rely on any single decision regarding the potential admissibility of future block reward claims and should be skeptical of any predictions regarding the outcome of any future litigation. Indeed, there is significant uncertainty that parties must consider when investing in debt securities that contain offset premium clauses, and it would not be advisable to assume that any particular offset claim will be permitted. in a future case of bankruptcy.
1 Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. vs. BOKFNA (In re MPM Silicones LLC), 874 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2017) (decliningentire receivables whose due date was accelerated by the bankruptcy filing and subsequent repayment was therefore not optional).
2 In re Energy Futures Holdings Corp., 842 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2016) (allowing set-off claims where redemption was optional because maturity was tied to a specific date).
3 In the AMR Corp. case, 730 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013) (denying compensation claims where loan documents stated that compensation would not be due in bankruptcy).
4 In re Ultra Petroleum, 943 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 2019) (referred to determine whether relief claims are unearned interest).
5 Wells Fargo Bank, NA vs. Hertz Corp., 2021 Banker. LEXIS 3491*; 2021 WL 6068390 (Bankr. D. Del. 22 Dec. 2021).
6 Hertz, 2021 Banker. LEXIS 3491 at *4-14.
7 Hertz, 2021 Banker. LEXIS 3491 at *16-18.
8 Hertz, 2021 Banker. LEXIS 3491 at *18-25.
To subscribe to Cahill publications, click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.