The Scourge of Bankruptcy: Successful Strategies to Collect Judgments & Prevent Employers from Dissipating Assets Prepared for NELA 2017 Spring Seminar March 31, 2017, Silver Spring, Maryland Moderator: Michael Sweeney 1 Panelists: Rebekah Bailey 2 and Matthew Dundon 3 This Primer may be distributed only by NELA to its members. This Primer is not to be cited or submitted in any proceeding and does not substitute for qualified legal or financial advice in any case. 1 Member, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC New Paltz, NY. JD 1996 Fordham University Law School. Getman, Sweeney & Dunn specializes in wage and hour class and collective actions. getmansweeney.com. 2 Partner, Nichols Kaster PLLP, Minneapolis, MN. JD 2008 University of Minnesota Law School. Nichols Kaster is a diversified consumer and employment class action firm. nka.com, linkedin.com/in/rebekah-bailey-1a9abb82/. 3 Principal, Dundon Advisers LLC, Scarsdale NY. JD 1998 University of Chicago Law School. Dundon Advisers’ distressed litigation advisory practice focuses on large plaintiff actions in corporate bankruptcy. dundon.com, www.linkedin.com/in/dundon. NELA 100
28
Embed
The Scourge of Bankruptcy - Dundon Advisers · 2017-12-11 · The Scourge of Bankruptcy: ... receiverships, and assignments for the benefit of creditors, and are usually deployed
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Scourge of Bankruptcy:
Successful Strategies to Collect Judgments & Prevent
Employers from Dissipating Assets
Prepared for NELA 2017 Spring Seminar
March 31, 2017, Silver Spring, Maryland
Moderator: Michael Sweeney1
Panelists: Rebekah Bailey2 and Matthew Dundon3
This Primer may be distributed only by NELA to its members. This
Primer is not to be cited or submitted in any proceeding and does not
substitute for qualified legal or financial advice in any case.
1 Member, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC New Paltz, NY. JD 1996 Fordham University
Law School. Getman, Sweeney & Dunn specializes in wage and hour class and collective
actions. getmansweeney.com.
2 Partner, Nichols Kaster PLLP, Minneapolis, MN. JD 2008 University of Minnesota Law
School. Nichols Kaster is a diversified consumer and employment class action firm. nka.com,
linkedin.com/in/rebekah-bailey-1a9abb82/.
3 Principal, Dundon Advisers LLC, Scarsdale NY. JD 1998 University of Chicago Law School.
Dundon Advisers’ distressed litigation advisory practice focuses on large plaintiff actions in
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
2
Contents
Business Bankruptcy 101 ................................................................................................................ 3
What business bankruptcy seek to achieves 3
Basic US bankruptcy and other insolvency proceedings 3
Consolidation and venue 5
Two key principles: conversion to a claim, and automatic stay 6
Ranking “waterfall” – administrative and 507(a)(4) claims in particular 6
Treatment of contingent claims, such as (usually) yours 8
Bankruptcy is a font of information 9
A familiar, yet foreign forum 10
Practice Guide ............................................................................................................................... 12
Preface – avoiding bankruptcy risk to begin with 12
Your defendant is threatening bankruptcy – what to do? 13
Your defendant has filed for bankruptcy – first steps 15
Value the debtors and your potential recoveries 15
Obtain representative status, if applicable 18
Obtain local and/or specialized bankruptcy counsel if needed 18
Obtain a financial adviser if needed 19
Seek a seat on the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors 20
Attend meeting of the creditors 20
Take a 2004 examination 21
File proofs of claim 21
Continue the substantive litigation 22
Attractive settlement features 24
Analyze the information made available on a continuing basis 24
Participate constructively in the process 24
Special cases: natural person debtor, wage and hour insurance, substantive
consolidation 25
Analyze and act upon dispositive proposals (bulk asset sales and/or a Plan) 25
Post-Exit disputed claims practice 27
Fees and expenses 27
NELA 101
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
3
Business Bankruptcy 101
What business bankruptcy seek to achieves
The Bankruptcy Code4 provides a means for insolvent companies to reorganize or liquidate
according to the following policy priorities, which emerge from statute, precedent, and practice:
Protect the business from near-term threats by halting lawsuits and collection efforts,
providing short-term financing, and assuring continuity of worker pay, insurance coverage,
customer programs, utility services, and other critical items
Determine the assets of the business
Determine the enforceable liabilities of the business
Rank those liabilities according to the presence and value of collateral or guarantees,
possession of priority under the law, or being subject to subordination by contract or equity
Maximize the value of the business for creditors by sale or reorganization of assets and
collection of damages and disgorgements from people who damaged the value of the
business or received improper or preferential value from the business
If the business is to reorganize, rather than liquidate, to put in place a business plan and
financing structure which gives the reorganized business the best chance to succeed
If the business is to liquidate, to do so as efficiently as possible
Distribute to creditors according to their relative priorities the value of the business, and, if
they are paid in full, the balance back to original shareholders, noting these distributions can
be in cash, debt, stock, or contingent interest in future events (like litigation outcomes)
To the extent possible, do the above with the consent of creditors
To the extent possible, do the above while minimizing the adverse impact of the above upon
employees, customers, vendors and the communities in which the business operates.
Basic US bankruptcy and other insolvency proceedings
Incorporated businesses seeking to restructure will almost always utilize proceedings under
Chapter 11 of the Code, which permits existing management to conduct ongoing businesses as
well as the bankruptcy5. Large businesses seeking to liquidate will usually also use Chapter 11;
some large businesses and most small business seeking to liquidate will use Chapter 7. In many
4 United States Bankruptcy Code of 1978, as amended. 11 U.S.C § 1, et. seq.
5 In a typical Chapter 11, Boards will remain intact, while existing executives are supplemented or replaced by
specialized restructuring professionals. In relatively rare Chapter 11 cases, the Court can displace the existing
management entirely in favor of an appointed Trustee. A Trustee is always appointed in Chapter 7 cases.
NELA 102
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
4
small business cases, a parallel individual Chapter 7, Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy of the
business’s owners will proceed on account of their personal guarantees of or other vicarious
liability for the business’s obligations, their use of personal borrowing such as credit cards or
home equity lines to finance the business, or their reliance upon business profits for their
household income. Sole proprietorships or general partnerships will be recognized or liquidated
in the course of their owner(s)’ personal Chapter 7, Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 cases.
Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 cases culminate in Plans for restructuring, liquidation or repayment
of debt. Chapter 7 cases culminate in Chapter 7 trustee’s formal or informal scheme for
liquidation of non-exempt assets and distributions of the same. This Primer will refer to all the
foregoing as Plans for the sake clarity. Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 cases have a formal
conclusion of the case in chief with the implementation of their Plans and a post implementation
period, while Chapter 7 cases have initial distributions and then subsequent distributions. This
Primer will refer to initial implementation / distribution point as “Exits” for the sake of clarity.
Bankruptcy cases are almost always heard in the US Bankruptcy Court6. There is one
Bankruptcy Court for each Judicial District with a varying number of Bankruptcy Judges.
Bankruptcy Judges are Article III judges appointed for terms of 14 years by the US Court of
Appeals for the Circuit in which the District lies. The appointment of Bankruptcy Judges is in
both principle and practice apolitical and only respected veteran local bankruptcy lawyers are
ever appointed. Bankruptcy Court decisions are appealed to the District Court or a circuit-wide
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel7 and thence to the US Circuit Court of Appeals, and are eligible for
certiorari to the US Supreme Court. In practice, higher courts usually defer to Bankruptcy
Courts and the extreme time sensitivity of business bankruptcy issues often operates to moot
appeals. The vast majority of questions before a Bankruptcy Court are disposed of on legal or
equitable grounds, and rules8 limit juries to when all parties request a jury; in consequence, juries
have no role in modern bankruptcy.
While this Primer focuses on Code proceedings, they are not the exclusive means to adjudicate
business insolvencies. Numerous state law procedures exist, such as liquidations, trusteeships,
receiverships, and assignments for the benefit of creditors, and are usually deployed when the
bankruptcy process is too expensive given the state of the business, or when debtors, creditors
and other stakeholders don’t require the unique protections of the Code. Insurance companies,
banks and brokerages are prohibited from using bankruptcy, and instead are liquidated by state
insurance regulators, the FDIC or SIPC, respectively. Many principles and practices of which
this Primer speaks are seen in these alternative proceedings as well.
The vast majority of business bankruptcies are commenced by the debtor, and as such are called
“voluntary,” although there’s often significant duress in that decision, including imminent
6 Technically, the Bankruptcy Court hears cases on reference from the District Court, and in extremely rare instances
the District Court will “withdraw the reference” and preside over bankruptcies directly.
7 Bankruptcy Appellate Panels are not used in the key Second or Third Circuits; their members are Bankruptcy
Judges from other Districts of the Circuit than the one from which the decision under appeal originated.
8 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 9015.
NELA 103
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
5
collection on judgments and foreclosure of secured assets. A small fraction of business
bankruptcies are “involuntary.” These cases are commenced pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 303 by the
petition of at least three creditors holding undisputed claims of material amount9, and must
truthfully allege that the business is generally not paying its debts. The motivation for an
involuntary proceeding is usually to stop a company from engaging in or continuing acts or
omissions which waste value, or to stop other creditors from taking self-serving actions which
damage the creditor body as a whole. (Sometimes those “bad” creditor acts are unilateral, other
times they are in collusion with management.) The filing of an involuntary petition has the same
initial effect as the filing of a voluntary petition. Immediately after an involuntary petition is
filed, the debtor and other creditors have an opportunity to petition the Court to dismiss the
petition if it is not warranted under the Code or in the interest of the company and the creditors.
(The requirement that a claim be both undisputed and unpaid accordingly will prevent wage and
hour litigants from being part of an involuntary bankruptcy petition until and unless they have a
settlement or judgment that has matured to collectability under its terms and applicable non-
bankruptcy law, and the requirement that debts are generally going unpaid will usually make the
refusal to pay a litigation judgment insufficient as a standalone basis for an involuntary petition.)
Consolidation and venue
Business cases often involve multiple entities filing simultaneously. These cases will always be
“administratively” consolidated under a single caption and docket number, and often will end up
“substantively” consolidated with all creditors and all assets of the petitioners considered as if
they were a single company. (See below for a detailed discussion of substantive consolidation.)
Over the years, the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the Southern District of New York and the
District of Delaware have taken on a dominant role in business bankruptcies, and until the last
couple of years any large business case was virtually certain to be filed in one of those
jurisdictions, with notable exceptions mainly driven by the desire of the debtors to create
uncertainty, access an esoteric provision of non-Second and -Third Circuit bankruptcy
jurisprudence, or gain (hoped for) hometown advantage. Since 2014, a significant share of major
energy cases have been filed in the Southern District of Texas, in large part due to the
willingness of the Houston Bankruptcy Judges to emulate the big-case rules and procedures
found in S.D.N.Y. and Delaware. Jurisdiction and venue in S.D.N.Y. or Delaware is almost
always proper because of the domicile of one or more administratively consolidated debtor, and
the invariable election of New York law and jurisdiction of Manhattan courts in any significant
credit agreement or bond indenture. (S.D.N.Y. filers will often belt-and-suspender by citing to
an operational location in Manhattan.) Debtors and creditors can also cite the expertise of those
courts’ Bankruptcy Judges, extensive and reliable precedent at both the Bankruptcy Courts and
the related District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the proximity of the most
sophisticated bankruptcy lawyers and professionals, most of whom work out of New York,
Philadelphia or Wilmington. In rare cases, creditors are successful in shifting a Delaware or
S.N.D.Y. case closer to home, but that typically requires a case where a large body of creditors
likely to take losses are concentrated in another location, and an argument can credibly be made
about efficiency and economy of the process if moved.
9 For certain small businesses, the threshold is lower.
NELA 104
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
6
A very important note for wage and hour practitioners is that much of what big business
bankruptcy professionals consider to be “the” law, standard or custom about any particular
bankruptcy question is in fact only “the” law, standard or custom prevailing in S.D.N.Y. or
Delaware. When you find yourself in case outside of those venues led by counsel who usually
practice within those venues—especially a non-Second/Third Circuit venue—never hesitate to
question when something is asserted to be the way it is, because in that court and Circuit, it may
indeed not be.
Two key principles: conversion to a claim, and automatic stay
When a defendant files for bankruptcy, the act of so doing converts all of its litigation liabilities,
whether liquidated by judgment or settlement, or merely contingent as is the case in pending
litigation, into claims in the bankruptcy. Those claims are entitled to be paid, if at all, only to the
extent of value generally available to claimants at the same legal priority. In addition to this
conversion of liability, bankruptcy also automatically stays all state and federal court litigation
against the debtor, and prohibits the initiation of any unfiled litigation against the debtor.10
The
stay is broad, prohibiting, for example, plaintiffs from sending demand letters. Be sure to honor
the stay as a debtor can file an adversary action against you, seeking penalties for willful
violations. Unless the stay is released by petition to the Court, from the moment of bankruptcy
until the conclusion of the case, all proceedings relating to your litigation will be in the
Bankruptcy Court.
Ranking “waterfall” – administrative and 507(a)(4) claims in particular
A near-sacred principle of bankruptcy is the “Rule of
Absolute Priority” – the concept that each tier of claims,
based upon priority at law, should be paid before the
next tier receives anything. Practitioners will often use
the metaphor of a “waterfall” to refer to this, but in fact
the metaphor is more to the way that water (or for the
celebratory, Champagne) flows down a pyramidal stack
of champagne glasses—each tier of glass must be filled
to the brim before anything drains down to the next.
The top of the waterfall is secured claims, but only the
extent of their collateral’s current market value. Secured
claims are not only entitled to be paid first on their
collateral value at the completion of a bankruptcy case,
but are entitled to “adequate protection” in the meantime
against anything reducing the value of that collateral. A
debtor who can’t persuade the court that a secured
lenders’ collateral is adequately protected can end up
having that collateral foreclosed in the middle of the
case, often with the very bad consequence of other
creditors given the damage to the business. When a secured claim exceeds the actual current
10 11 U.S.C. § 362.
NELA 105
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
7
value of the collateral, the balance is a called a “deficiency” claim and is merely a general
unsecured claim. Wage and hour plaintiffs very rarely will have effectively secured claims; it
would take a pre-petition judgment that matured to something upon which a lien could be
imposed, and in general pre-petition judgment liens have limited enforceability in bankruptcy.
Because of the priority afforded to secured claims, the holders of secured claims, typically banks
and sometimes bondholders, will have great power in a case, and unsecured creditors will focus a
great deal of energy on investigating the validity and perfection (under the UCC or mortgage
laws) of the liens. When secured claims are held by shareholders of the debtors (i.e., the owners
lent or purported to loan money or acquired third parties’ loans), there are often important
additional arguments to be made about the validity or permitted seniority of the liens.
Next in the waterfall is administrative claims. While they come in many varieties, for a wage
and hour practitioner their key inclusion is wages and benefits for work performed after the
bankruptcy started and they matter because they are entitled to be paid in full ahead of any
other unsecured obligation and are in practice almost always paid in full even at the
expense of pre-petition secured lenders. In a case where (for example) pre-petition unsecured
claims generally recover a dime on the dollar, you’d reasonably want to spend ten times the
resources identifying these administrative post-petition claims. If you are representing a class or
collective group of workers with an end date on your period, you may want to look for additional
single-event claims you can aggregate (from class members, or others). Other administrative
expenses include expenses of the professionals administering a bankruptcy, obligations to
vendors for deliveries in the 20 days preceding a filing11
, and other liabilities which originated
after the petition date of the bankruptcy.
Next in the waterfall is priority claims. There are numerous flavors here, but critical among
them for wage and hour practitioners are claims provided by priority by 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4).
507(a)(4) grants priority status to a worker’s claim for unpaid wages and benefits in the 180 days
before the petition, up to a limit of $12,850 per worker for each unpaid wages and unpaid benefit
(this amount will be adjusted in 2019 and each three years thereafter). While 507(a)(4)’s use for
wage and hour cases is not uncontroversial or certain, you have no downside for asserting them
in good faith.
Next are general unsecured claims. This is the default for litigation claims and will be the
destiny for any claims relating to services performed more than six months pre-petition or later
to the extent 507(a)(4) is found not to apply, as well as any claims for legal fees. (But see our
comments on legal fees in general later.) Certain claims which are general unsecured as
concerns the debtor and the body of creditors will actually be subordinated to specific other debt
by contract, and will be liable to have what would be their recoveries “paid over” to the
designated senior debt. As a rule, wage and hour claims will be unaffected by this – they will be
neither subordinated nor benefit from other creditors’ being subordinated. In addition to
unsecured bonds, litigation claims, and vendor claims too stale for 503(b)(9), general unsecured
claims is the class for the damages sought by landlords and commercial contract counterparties
11 Universally referred to as 503(b)(9) claims, as they are provided for by 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9) and rule thereunder.
NELA 106
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
8
for leases and commercial contracts that the Code permits the debtor to terminate (“reject”) at a
loss to the landlord or counterparty.
Next are claims generally subordinated by contract law or court order. In rare instances, a
contractual claim will be a debt that stipulates its subordination to all other debt – seen most
frequently in the capital structures of financial institutions. In cases where debt is held by
someone whom the Court determines to have been a bad actor, or to have provided debt only as a
means of rescuing an equity investment, that debt can be subordinated by court order.
Finally come equity interests. Equity interests, such as preferred or common stock, are to be
paid last. But, of course, equity owners often control debtors and will if allowed their way find
ways to vindicate their equity interests or otherwise use their control to benefit themselves. Just
as unsecured creditors need to police upwards against secured creditors, unsecured creditors also
have to police down to make sure that equity isn’t being paid prematurely or in excess of what it
deserves.
Treatment of contingent claims, such as (usually) yours
Unless you are going into bankruptcy with a settlement or a judgment, your claim will be
initially labeled contingent and unliquidated. If you develop a factual basis for a precise amount
of a claim, it can be described as liquidated. If and when the debtor or another creditor formally
opposes your claim, it becomes “disputed.” If and when your claim is vindicated, it ceases to be
contingent and becomes “allowed” in the amount vindicated.
A contingent claimant has the procedural rights and standing of an allowed claimant until and
unless it is withdrawn or the court approves a motion to disallow it. In practice, a court may
weigh a contingent claimant’s arguments more lightly if the debtor or other creditors make a
strong case for the weakness of his or her underlying claims, but if the legal arguments or fact
arguments are strong, the court should allow you to prevail.
Contingent and disputed claims are often settled during the active phase of a bankruptcy, and
thus become “allowed” claims and receive the Plan’s treatment for claims of that allowed
amount and rank, whatever it may be, at the exit from bankruptcy.
Finally, appreciate claim disputes which can’t be settled are often unable to be fully adjudicated
during the course of the bankruptcy case in chief, and if unsettled persist as disputed claims after
the Exit, to be resolved post-exit by a mechanism provided by the Plan. In this case, a portion of
the recovery allocated to claims of the class of the disputed claims must be set aside, and
ultimately paid to the claimant if his or her claim is ultimately allowed (to the extent allowed), or
to the other creditors as a second payment to the extent that claim is ultimately disallowed. Note
that even if the claim is litigated after Exit, you are fighting for Plan recoveries at their recovery
rate, and not for the full value of the award or settlement (unless the recovery rate happens to be
100%). The burden is on you to make sure a Plan provides an appropriate disputed claims
process and that the amounts set aside are adequate; this is a key area of late-case practice
discussed in the practice guide below.
NELA 107
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
9
Bankruptcy is a font of information
Bankruptcy requires debtors to provide copious information about the business’s assets,
liabilities, revenue, and expenses, even if the company was privately held. This information will
be on the PACER docket for a case, available to you at a per-page charge like all other PACER
data. In large corporate bankruptcies, the PACER docket will be reproduced with documents
available for free on the website of the claims and noticing agent who will be appointed.12
Important sources of information that will be provided to you without your intervention include:
The debtor’s initial petition under the Code, in particular its listing of major unsecured
creditors and (sometimes) secured creditors, equity holders and litigation claims
The debtor’s “first day motion” petitions for short-term financing, continuation of insurance,
employee benefits, and the like
The extensive statement or affidavit of the facts and circumstances that typically
accompanies the first day pleadings of larger Chapter 11s, and always does in cases in the
key jurisdictions of Delaware, the Southern District of New York, and the Southern District
of Texas
Schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs, which are filed
relatively early in a case (although often subject to delay)
Monthly reports of debtors’ operations, including revenue, expenses and cash flow
A formal meeting between management and creditors, usually called a Section 341 meeting,
typically held one or two months after the case commences, in which you can directly
question management or the trustee (if one is appointed)
Affidavits in support of motions for relief of all sorts, as those motions are made, especially
concerning asset sales and determinations to assume or reject leases or executory contracts
Additional confidential information given to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors,
should you happen to be a member of the Committee
The register of claims maintained by the Court or a claims agent
Pleadings of other creditors and groups of creditors and the FRBP 2019 disclosures filed by
their counsel, which identify group members and the nature and size of their claims.
12 The identity of the agent will typically be found on the PACER docket in the form of a motion to approve its
appointment. Otherwise you can search the major agents’ websites, the large majority of cases appointing one of the
following vendors; KCC, Epiq, PrimeClerk, Donlin Recano/AST, Rust/Omni, or BMC.
NELA 108
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
10
Reports of an “Examiner” who may be appointed – typically only in the largest of business
cases and then limited only to certain controversies about improper conduct of managers,
shareholders or affiliates before the bankruptcy
The “Disclosure Statement” which is required to accompany any proposed non-Chapter 7
Plan, and which will provide key information about the expected impact upon various classes
of claims of the proposal
In addition to the above, you also have the ability to make use of the expanded discovery
provisions of FRBP 2004 if there is information of consequence to you which is not being
provided, particularly if (a) substantive issues related to your case come before the Bankruptcy
Court or (b) due to neglect or collusion other creditors are not effectively advocating for the
creditor cause broadly and you initiate motion and other practice to do so yourself.
A familiar, yet foreign forum
To a civil litigator, Bankruptcy Court can be disorientating. The experience is likened to visiting
Italy, when you have only studied Spanish in school. The language (terminology) is somewhat
familiar, but conversations (procedures) can be difficult to follow. For example, the terms
“case” and “litigation”—two terms civil litigators use interchangeably—are not necessarily
synonymous in bankruptcy. A bankruptcy case may involve several litigation matters. An
“adversary proceeding”, for example, is the name of a lawsuit filed in a bankruptcy case and
usually tried in the Bankruptcy Court during or after the reorganization or liquidation case in
chief. A party initiates an adversary proceeding by filing a complaint, a familiar process. The
proceeding receives a traditional caption (Smith v. Jones) and “case number”. A “contested
matter”, on the other hand, is a type of litigation that is initiated in the bankruptcy case by motion
or application. Contested matters do not receive a distinct caption or number. Contested matters
may be litigated more quickly than traditional civil litigation, but they proceed similarly with a
discovery process and a trial before the bankruptcy judge.
Bankruptcy procedure is governed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy
Rules”), which are similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but with some distinct
differences. For example, Bankruptcy Rule 7004 allows for nationwide service of process. This
broader rule, however, does not apply to the service of subpoenas. When navigating the
Bankruptcy Rules, note that there are specific rules in Part VII (the “7000 Series”), governing
adversary proceedings, while the rules pertaining to contested matters are contained elsewhere in
Part IV.
Another unfamiliar practice is the Bankruptcy Court’s notice and hearings process. It is not
uncommon for a party to give “notice” of its intent to do something. If no one objects to the
notice, then that party moves forward with its intended action without a hearing. Alternatively, if
someone objects, a hearing is set for argument. This practice requires participants to keep a
close eye on the bankruptcy docket for potential areas of dispute. This leads to another
distinction between bankruptcy and federal civil matters: there are a lot more hearings in
Bankruptcy Court, generally speaking, and things move much faster, and all parties and the
Court will have a consistent bias for action and hostility to anything that smacks of delay for
tactical or strategic advantage.
NELA 109
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
11
Evidence, on the other hand, is handled similarly. Bankruptcy Rule 9017 incorporates the
familiar Federal Rules of Evidence. See also Bankr. Rule 9014(d). In practice though,
Bankruptcy Courts may be less strict in their implementation of the rules of evidence. This is
likely because of the absence of juries or perhaps the willingness of bankruptcy judges to
implement practical business solutions at the expense of more rigid court procedures.
NELA 110
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
12
Practice Guide
Preface – avoiding bankruptcy risk to begin with
The first step in dealing with the scourge of bankruptcy is avoiding it all together. While we
cannot always be sure that a defendant will be able to withstand a judgment, there are steps you
can take to avoid finding yourself litigating against a bankrupt defendant.
Evaluate the bankruptcy risk during your initial evaluation of the case. By estimating the
probable damages and then investigating the defendants’ assets, you can often have a pretty good
idea of the bankruptcy risk. Resources for asset investigations include public filings, e.g., the
SEC, for publicly-traded companies. Don’t forget that many larger companies may be “privately
held” in the sense that there is no public market for their stock, but still have bonds or bank debt
in the public or institutional markets, and as such provide financial data and operational analyses
at least quarterly to their lenders13
. Look at the market capitalization of the stock, the enterprise
value of the company (its market capitalization, plus its debt, less its cash), and look at the
trading levels and yields of its bonds. Especially if your prospective defendant is a retailer or
manufacturer, look out for ones whose accounts payable and purchase orders are treated as no
longer financeable by factors or export credit agencies. For entities or individuals, databases
such, as Westlaw or LexisNexis’s Accurint, and mandatory state filings can provide financial
information. Other assets that can signal the ability to withstand a judgment include insurance or
bond requirements or large long-term contracts, etc. Electronic searches can reveal a significant
amount about a defendant. For example, PACER and state court docket searches will show
pending litigation against the defendant and/or prior bankruptcies. Targeted internet searches
can also shed light on any financial stress.
As we will discuss in greater detail below, adding defendants is a powerful strategy, it and may
become more powerful as joint-employer and other vicarious liability theories gain steam in
“blue” states as part of their reaction to the Trump’s Administration Department of Labor and
Republican majorities on the NLRB and EEOC. You want to name all the potential defendants
in a case because one defendant filing bankruptcy does not in principle affect your claims against
the others. The FLSA has the broadest definition of “employ” of any federal statute, and it often
covers entities or people who you may not consider employers in the ordinary meaning of the
word. In an independent contractor misclassification case, employer status may adhere to several
layers of sub and general contractors.14
(For example, home health aides in New York are often
employed directly by undercapitalized licensed home care service agencies, but the usually better
capitalized certified home health agencies have regulatory responsibilities for the home health
aides that can establish joint employment.) With multiple defendants, you can usually proceed
against the others if one files for bankruptcy, and barring a third-party release, you will
eventually get your day in court against them if you want.
13 A private company which has issued even one SEC-registered bond publicly reports almost all the same
information as issuers of public stock. A private company which has issued only private-placement bonds and/or
borrowed institutional loans will report that information privately, but that privacy can be very leaky and industry
sources will often have a very good idea if a private-market borrower is financially distressed.
14 See Wage & Hour Div., U.S. Dep’t Labor, Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-1 (Jan. 20, 2016).
NELA 111
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
13
Particularly important is that you don’t forget individual (natural person) defendants. The Code
is significantly less protective of individual debtors than corporate debtors, and employment
liabilities which can simply go away uncompensated or nearly so in a low-recovery case against
a business entity can be preserved against a businessperson. Individuals can be considered
employers even where the nominal employer is an entity. An obvious employer is an individual
who owns and handles the day-to-day operations of the employing entity. But, the FLSA is not
so demanding. Anyone who was responsible for the illegal policy may be an employer under the
FLSA. States may provide an even greater reach. For example, in New York State, the ten top
shareholders in a non-public corporation are “jointly and severally … personally liable for all
debts, wages or salaries due and owing to any of its laborers, servants or employees other than
contractors, for services performed by them for such corporation.”15
Under California law,
corporate owners, directors, officers, or managing agents (e.g., department supervisors, payroll
managers, human resources managers, other employees with the authority to transact on behalf
of the business), who violate or cause to be violated various wage and hour laws in the California
labor code can be named as individual defendants in a lawsuit.16
Inclusion of all possible
employers as early as possible in your lawsuit can provide you with much needed leverage if an
entity files for bankruptcy.
Your defendant is threatening bankruptcy – what to do? If you believe a defendant may be filing for bankruptcy in the near future, you need to be careful.
On the one hand, a settlement is a definitive claim in bankruptcy with status not unlike that of a
bond or a loan; the very significant issues that we will discuss in greater detail below regarding
contingent claims won’t apply to you. On the other hand, a settlement, very much including its
provision for legal fees, will be transformed by a bankruptcy filing into a claim, and the recovery
on those claims might be very steeply discounted. So, while the last thing you want to do is to
take a very low settlement to try sneak out before the filing, you also want to make meaningful
concessions in order to have a locked in rather than disputed claim.
A well-advised plaintiff attorney, if the defendant is threatening bankruptcy as part of
negotiations, will seek to receive detailed financial and other information from the defendant
before acting upon such threats. The plaintiff attorney should also carefully consider present and
potentially add-able co-defendants who might not file for bankruptcy because the principle
bankruptcy of the one defendant won’t reduce the liability of the non-debtor defendants. (In
practice, debtors will seek to let their shareholders and affiliates weasel out of liability— this is
discussed in greater detail below regarding “third party releases.”)
The Code has a provision for the “avoidance” of “preferences.” A “preference” is an amount
paid to a creditor in the 90 days17
before a debtor files for bankruptcy which is higher, as a
percentage of the amount owed, than what that creditor would likely receive if it had kept the
obligation outstanding at the time of filing and waited in line with other creditors of the same
15 N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 (McKinney).
16 Cal. Labor Code section 588.1.
17 365 days in the case of payments made to an insider.
NELA 112
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
14
rank. An “avoidance” is a forced disgorgement, while you go and wait in that line to get
whatever percentage is ultimately distributable on the claims. Payments made in the ordinary
course of the debtor’s business are excluded from avoidance, but the determination of when and
whether the settlement of litigation and the payment of settlements are in the ordinary course is
extremely fact specific and vulnerable to attack. Never settle at a discount in reliance upon being
paid before the commencement of a bankruptcy without the benefit of an (at least) informal
opinion of qualified bankruptcy counsel that the payment won’t be subject to avoidance as a
preference, because if it is avoided, you won’t reopen the question of the size of the settlement,
but will simply have a smaller claim subject to the same discount rate to which your bigger
claim would have been.
To avoid this when settling with a defendant who has at one time threatened bankruptcy, you can
demand a provision in a settlement agreement whereby the defendant affirms that it does not
presently intend to commence insolvency proceedings, has not engaged bankruptcy counsel, or
otherwise commenced planning for any insolvency proceeding. Receiving an officer’s certificate
from a corporate officer who would have had personal knowledge can be very helpful, because
you can penalize him personally if it turns out the representations were false. You can also
negotiate provision in your agreement that dissolves the release if a defendant files for
bankruptcy and allows the plaintiffs to prosecute their claims for at least face value that the
settlement would have foregone. Some Bankruptcy Courts would hesitate to enforce such
provisions under the general disfavor of contract provisions which penalize a bankruptcy
proceeding, and others might agree the settlement is invalid but nevertheless rely upon its
amount as good evidence of the extent to which the claim about to be allowed. The following is
one such example of a provision:
This Settlement Agreement represents a compromise of the full value of the Class
Members’ claims. If any defendant becomes a debtor in any bankruptcy,
reorganization, debt arrangement or other proceeding or makes an assignment for
benefit of creditors under any federal, state or foreign bankruptcy or insolvency
law, or a receiver is appointed for any defendant or any assets or businesses of
any defendant (each an “Insolvency Proceeding”) after the time the Participating
Class Members’ releases become effective pursuant to this Agreement, but before
the Class Members receive the full value of their settlement allocation, then the
release provided herein shall be void and defendants shall remain liable for the
full value of the maximum settlement amount remaining to be paid under this
Agreement as of the date of occurrence or commencement the Insolvency
Proceeding. The Class Members and Class Counsel will be permitted to file proof
of claims in any Insolvency Proceeding, the shall be entitled to relief from any
stay imposed in any such Insolvency Proceeding (including, without limitation,
the automatic stay imposed by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code or any similar
stay or suspension of remedies under any other federal, state or foreign law) to
allow such Participating Class Members and Class Counsel to prosecute and
liquidate their claims against each defendant, including, without limitation, any
appeals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Participating Class Members and/or
Class Counsel are obligated to disgorge or repay any part of the Court-approved
settlement amounts pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §
101, et seq. (as amended from time to time, the “Bankruptcy Code”) the law of
NELA 113
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
15
any local, state, federal or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise, then defendants shall
not be released from and shall remain liable for the full value of the Attorneys’
Fees and Litigation Expenses disgorged or repaid.
Your defendant has filed for bankruptcy – first steps This is a hard moment of calculation. Your investment in the case, and your clients’ hopes for
recoveries, have been put into question. In the instant where the defendant has a large amount of
secured debt and you don’t have any good claims for priority, your case may have become
worthless. But in other bankruptcies, your case may have retained 100% of its value. In recent
years, it has become quite common for so-called “pre-packaged” bankruptcies—ones where
management, lenders and bondholders agree on the terms of a bankruptcy before it is even filed
—to provide all non-loan general unsecured creditors, including litigants, with a “ride through,”
i.e., they can resume their litigation after the conclusion of the case and are entitled to payment in
full of their judgment or settlement, if any.
In most bankruptcies, the likely outcome is somewhere in the middle. The critical thing is to
make a case-specific assessment: don’t automatically give up, but don’t keep investing time and
money until you have a good reason to believe the investments are warranted.
Even more critical than taking a step back to analyze your prospects is to do so quickly. If there
is any salient quality of modern business bankruptcy of which plaintiff counsel needs to be aware
it is that it moves extraordinarily fast. Key, and sometime irrevocable, decisions are made in
Court the next business day or two after a bankruptcy case is started, including the imposition of
super-priority liens to secure emergency financing, and the provision of selective benefit to
favored creditors (virtually certain not to include wage and hour litigants!). Many, and
sometimes most, of the pieces are put on the table within a week or two after the case is started,
including the appointment an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the selection of its
legal and financial advisers. Plaintiff counsel who dallies will get a good result only by dumb
luck—and usually will be leaving significant value for their clients and themselves on the table.
Value the debtors and your potential recoveries
In the lucky fraction of cases which give non-financial unsecured claims a “ride through”, you
know what your case is worth— face value—and your task is simply to make sure nothing in the
process disrupts. Most of the time, however, you won’t be so lucky, and need to determine the
value of your claim.
As we discussed above, bankruptcy is at its heart an allocation of the distributable value of the
debtor first to its secured creditors to the extent of their collateral value, then to unsecured
creditors based upon their legal priority, and whatever’s left, if anything, to the old shareholders.
To get a sense of what you and your clients may receive, you therefore need to have an estimate
of the value of the enterprise (what the components of the business might sell for, or how the
market would value the components of the business that are not sold and continue to operate
after Exit) and the value of other distributable assets, such as cash or litigation rights.
In some cases, the market can do all of your work for you, because bonds or trade claims with
which you are equally ranked are trading in the public market. If you have no administrative or
priority claims, and there are senior unsecured bonds issued by your defendant, their trading
NELA 114
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
16
price is, in absence of other evidence, the valuation percentage you should attach to your claims.
When vendor trade claims are trading (and information about that trading is considerably more
obscure), the same 1:1 application can be made.
In mid-size and smaller corporate cases, there will rarely be a trading market in the company’s
obligations, and sometimes even if very large cases, there’s no trading market in obligations with
which you equally rank and so you can’t rely upon the trading markets that are observable. In
these cases you need to do your own work, at least at first.
Many times, significant financial analysis will already have been performed by the company and
its insolvency professionals even before the commencement of the case. There may well be
significant estimates of asset valuation in the affidavit filed in favor of the “first day motions” or
in materials that were used in pre-petition negotiations among the company and its major
financial creditors. A company may file for bankruptcy with an important asset or even the
entire company already marked for sale with a proposed purchase price and some rationale for it
attached. All the materials initially filed should be carefully reviewed for these estimates.
By convention, businesses and their assets are valued by up to three different methods, with the
mid-point value of the viable methods being the valuation estimate. That valuation estimate will
have important persuasive effect upon the Bankruptcy Court until and unless value is actually
liquidated and is no longer a subject of estimation. Of course, different parties in a bankruptcy
court will conduct the analyses differently, using rival valuation professionals often goal seeking
specific values for strategic or tactical advantage, and leaving it to the Bankruptcy Court to
decide as a question of fact whose estimate is more reliable.
While a financial adviser will be a good idea in many cases, these valuation methods are in basic
concept quite simple and capable of at least a preliminary run by a reasonably numerate attorney
using the debtor’s own financial information and Excel.
The three most common methods are “normalized EBITDA multiple,” “comparable sales” and
“discounted cash flow.” We will walk through the first method in greatest detail, as it is the most
common and most popular at least among investment professionals.
“Normalized EBITDA multiple” determines enterprise value by (a) estimating the business’s
normalized earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), (b)
looking at similar but not financially distressed companies trading in the public stock market and
seeing the average multiple of their enterprise values to their EBITDA, and (c) multiplying the
business’s normalized EBITDA by that industry average multiple.
You normalize EBITDA by looking at the business’s current EBITDA (which will already be
known if the company is public, and which will be disclosed or discoverable for a non-public
debtor) and estimating out how, when the economic or business conditions that caused the
bankruptcy alleviate, certain revenues will be higher or certain expenses different (some will be
lower, others will be higher due to higher revenue-generating activities); in many cases, you can
get a rough estimate by simply looking at what EBITDA was two or three years before the
bankruptcy filing. But beware: some bankruptcies are caused by permanent changes in the
economy or industry; you wouldn’t want to “normalize” the EBITDA of a US thermal coal
NELA 115
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
17
miner based upon its earnings in years before American publicly utilities made a de facto
decision never to build another coal-fired power plant. EBITDA multiples are available on many
different free-to-use financial websites (including Google Finance and Yahoo! Finance). The
challenge with finding comparable EBITDA multiples is choosing valid comparisons. For
example, if Neiman-Marcus were to go bankrupt, you can’t compare it to Wal-Mart, but you can
compare it to Nordstrom.
The “comparable sales” model is similar to “normalized EBITDA” but instead of looking at
market trading levels of comparable companies, you look at recent sales of companies or large
businesses within companies where the purchase price was disclosed and either the revenues or
the EBITDA of the acquired company or business was disclosed or otherwise known, and apply
that multiple to the bankrupt business. The “discounted cash flow” model disregards other
companies and simply relies upon a projection of the normalized cash flows of the business for
some years into the future, applying a “discount rate” which increasingly diminishes the present
value of each of those future year’s cash flow. (It will in general be difficult for an attorney
without significant financial analysis skills to perform a DCF valuation, but you should be able
to understand other people’s DCF valuations at least in broad scope.)
Once you have a rough estimate of valuation, you determine where you come out by applying it
to the waterfall, as discussed above. Public records and the initial package of filings in the case
will give you a sense of the amount of secured debt, all of which you should assume must be
paid before your case has any value, as well as a first guess at the scope of administrative,
priority and general unsecured claims. You simply deduct each tier of claim from the enterprise
value, and then when you reach your likely category of claim, divided by the amount of claims by
the amount of enterprise value remaining.
Here’s a simple example, which for the sake of simplicity will assume that your case pertains
only to unpaid wages for work more than 180 days before the case’s commencement:
Debtor had $20 million in EBITDA in the year preceding the bankruptcy filing. It’s a fertilizer
manufacturer without any particular environmental or operational problems, but fertilizer prices
are highly cyclical, and last year was a bad year. It had $40 million in EBITDA on average in
the three years before the last twelve months. But you know that Chinese companies are
investing in fertilizer export capacity, and so you conservatively “normalize” the EBITDA at $30
million.
Using Yahoo! Finance, you see that there are eight North American companies that specialize in
fertilizer manufacturing, but didn’t have the debtor’s excessive debt load, so they aren’t being
forced into bankruptcy despite the low-price environment. Most of the EBITDA multiples are
between 3x and 5x. One has a multiple of 14x, one has a multiple of 1.5x. You eliminate the
tow outliers and take the (for example) 4.2x average multiple of the remaining companies. You
now have an enterprise value of $30 million X 4.2 or $126 million. You expect the company
will have in addition to its enterprise value about $15 million in cash by the time it exits
bankruptcy based upon its current cash balances and the collection of receivables. You also read
that the company has an anti-trust lawsuit against a group of suppliers that is worth $20 million
to $40 million after legal fees.
NELA 116
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
18
Looking at the first-day pleadings of the debtor, you see that it has a $75 million revolving credit
facility of which $45 million was borrowed, and that it is seeking an emergency additional
financing of $15 million. From this, you know to deduct $60 million from the valuation as
already spoken for. You see that another $10 million to $20 million of expenses are proposed to
be paid “off the top” (for example, insurance, utilities, accrued worker and customer obligations,
and a “critical” supplier or two), and you add another $10 million in legal and advisory fees that
will similarly be paid off the top. (Yes, your law school classmates who went into bankruptcy
probably chose wisely.) That’s another $25 million estimated for the waterfall.
Now, you can estimate what general unsecured recoveries will share in: $126 million plus $15
million (cash) plus $30 million (litigation) less the sum of $60 million and $25 million, or a total
of $86 million. Your next step is to estimate the total amount of the general unsecured claims
including your case. Key here is that you are using the face value, or non-bankruptcy value, of
all claims, including your case. You read in the initial materials or public disclosures that the
company has $125 million in senior unsecured bonds, and estimated its non-priority vendor
accounts payable at $20 million to $30 million. There are three other major litigations to which
you can assign an aggregate settlement value of $10 million to $20 million. You believe your
case has non-bankruptcy settlement value of $10 million. From these numbers, you can build up
a total unsecured claims estimate of $185 million (use the high end of estimates, to be
conservative). This enables you to come up with a bottom line estimate of $86 million divided
by $185 million, or 46%.
Obtain representative status, if applicable
Bankruptcy is by default a proceeding for individual claims. If your claims arise from a class,
collective or other representative action, you must obtain the consent of the Court to advocate for
those claims on a representative basis or file a collective claim for some or all of your causes of
action, even if the underlying action has already been certified as a class. In essence, Rules
7023 and 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure vest it within the discretion of the
Bankruptcy Court to apply class action principles to a bankruptcy case. The extent and nature of
the pleadings required to achieve this will vary, but should be executed with care. (If you know,
or discover, that your attempt to obtain representative status will be contested, this is an area
where bankruptcy co-counsel is likely to be of value.)
A critical point to be made is that even once having obtained representative status, the claims
continue to be individual in their essence and the ultimate resolution of the claims will continue
to require calculation and distribution of individual recoveries, and sometimes even require
individual submission of claim forms or calculations by or for her each worker in your class or
collective group. This mechanic will become very important as you submit Proofs of Claims,
and is something about which you must be well advised.
Obtain local and/or specialized bankruptcy counsel if needed
There are two related issues here: whether substantial bankruptcy counsel is required, and
whether local counsel is required. For wage and hour practitioners with relatively small claims,
especially in cases where value is uncertain, the likely answer may be “neither,” because local
Bankruptcy Court rules permit routine filing by parties in their own name, or by out-of-state
counsel without pro hac vice sponsorship. In general, your best move is not to start incurring
NELA 117
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
19
expense for local counsel immediately, but retain local counsel only when you have identified a
clear need and likely economic benefit.
In certain cases, local rules or customs may dictate the retention of local counsel, but that’s not
necessarily the end of the world. As a general matter the peripheral market bankruptcy bar does
a good job of providing small-footprint, modest-fee local counsel support, although you should
expect to have to fund such costs out of pocket and hope to reclaim them as case expenses on the
back end.
With large claims, particularly where class or collective standing is made at issue, or where there
are other complex questions of bankruptcy law at stake, retention of bankruptcy co-counsel is
likely to be necessary. Most of the time, such counsel will be able to do double-duty as local
counsel—but you should not assume that to be the case. If you are facing a large bankruptcy in a
peripheral jurisdiction, virtually every party will have a New York, Chicago or Los Angeles
lawyer backed up by local counsel, and there may be no local counsel able to handle the issues at
question on their own with sufficient firepower to stand a chance.
Unlike local counsel, substantive bankruptcy co-counsel will often be open to sharing risk with
you to some greater or lesser extent. A sizeable share of your contingent fee, or a low hourly fee
against a small share of your contingent fee, may each be in the offing. It is important in making
decisions on this not to allow the sunk cost fallacy to affect your decisions. You have may have
spent years and lots of case costs to develop a case, and it will be a bitter pill to trade away a
significant percentage of that for bankruptcy counsel who will do a relatively small amount of
work over a brief period of time … but the absence of that work could cost you and your clients
most or all of what you stand to gain from the case. In other words, something of something is
worth much more than all of nothing.
Obtain a financial adviser if needed
Substantial creditors in bankruptcies who lack expertise in distressed and fixed income investing
often retain financial advisers to assist their work – a wage and hour plaintiff attorney with a
significant class, collective or other representative claim may easily find themselves in this
category. Such financial advisers conduct economic and business analysis of the debtor, probe
other creditors for legal or economic weakness in their case posture, assess the impact upon the
claims of various bankruptcy proposals, evaluate proposed recoveries (particularly if proposed to
be in non-cash form), and provide strategic advice on negotiations and litigation from their
experience in many past bankruptcies. They can also lead the selection process of bankruptcy
counsel and can share with their clients the management of bankruptcy counsel, for best effect
and economization of fees.
As with the retention of counsel, the critical assessment plaintiff counsel must make in a
financial adviser retention decisions relate to the likely fee value of the case and the degree to
which the financial adviser is willing to share risk in the case outcome. A financial adviser fee
can sometimes be charged to gross client recoveries as a case expense. As well, most financial
advisers interested in working with litigation claimants will offer a fee formula which is mostly
or entirely contingent. Your calculus on whether to part with that share of your prospective fees
is the same one regarding substantive counsel, with the same sometimes “bitter pill” judgment to
be made.
NELA 118
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
20
Seek a seat on the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Official Committees are immensely important in business Chapter 11s. They are bodies of three
to nine (but most often seven) unsecured creditors who become fiduciaries of the entire
unsecured creditor body and who at debtor expense appoint lawyers and financial advisers to
investigate, evaluate and advocate on behalf of that body, usually receiving significant non-
public information to assist them in so doing. The Official Committee is appointed within a
week or two of the commence of a case by the office of the United States Trustee. The United
States Trustee is a regional official of the US Department of Justice with the duty to monitor and
advocate for the integrity of the bankruptcy process, and the appointment of Official Committees
is among his or her greatest powers in the process. The Official Committee is formally adverse
to the debtor but in practice is often primarily contesting the extent and treatment of secured
creditors and other creditors seeking priority treatment, as well as leading the charge against
shareholders, executives or affiliates which mismanaged or took improper benefits from the
debtor before it went bankrupt.
In addition to an Official Committee’s formal roles, informally, the Committee also makes its
members insiders to the process, and often acts as a counterbalance to hedge funds and other
unsecured creditors who will organize and fund the professionals of private (“ad hoc”)
committees.
Litigation claimants, including those with contingent or disputed claims, are routinely appointed
to Official Committees, and wage and hour plaintiffs should always assess the virtue of applying
and sitting on a Committee. A litigation plaintiff will typically need to request an application
from the United States Trustee and carefully fill it out within a few days of a case’s
commencement. Note that the applicant must always be a representative plaintiff in his or her
name, but he or she can designate you or another professional as her or her “proxy” for the
formation of the Committee, and designation of a sophisticated proxy is usually worthwhile. (In
a case where a litigation has already been reduced to a judgement or settlement with a separate
provision for attorney fees, you can apply in your name as a creditor in your own right owed
those fees.)
Once an Official Committee is appointed and in operation, each member can determine how his
or her seat is utilized, and is free to designate the formation proxy as the ongoing primary
spokesperson and worker for Committee work, or to designate another person to do so.
Attend meeting of the creditors
Section 341 of the Code causes the U.S. Trustee to conduct a meeting of the creditors within the
first few months following bankruptcy filing. The U.S. Trustee conducts the meeting to
familiarize itself with the debtor’s finances; however, the creditors in attendance may also ask
questions.
The corporate representatives are under oath and represented by bankruptcy counsel—so they are
not likely prepared to answer questions relating to FLSA matters). The U.S. Trustee controls the
amount and types of questioning creditors may ask. Wage and hour litigators should use this
opportunity to obtain favorable concessions from the debtor on disputed issues. The closer these
questions relate to the debtor’s finances and expenses, the more likely you will be permitted to
proceed. In independent-contractor misclassification cases, for example, you could ask about the
NELA 119
NELA Spring Seminar 2017 The Scourge of Bankruptcy
21
debtor’s investments into the business and the debtor’s control over profits and losses. If you are
also asserting FLSA claims against the owners, the meeting of the creditors also provides you
with an opportunity to explore the owners’ involvement in the day-to-day operations of the
business.
A key point about 341s and a limitation in some cases of the extent to which you can rely upon
them value is that they happen long after the commencement of a case. Invariably in larger cases
and occasionally in smaller cases there will have been important proceedings and rulings, and
not infrequently proceedings and rulings with dispositive effect upon creditors’ value, well
before the 341 meeting, and the revelation of new information at 341 meeting won’t likely
provide a basis for reconsideration of any of those rulings, unless they demonstrated that
testimony or documents upon which the Bankruptcy Court relied were false.
Take a 2004 examination
Bankruptcy Rule 2004 permits, upon a motion, parties of interest to examine (depose) any entity
relating to “acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or
to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor’s estate, or to the debtor’s right
to a discharge.” In other words, Rule 2004 allows for “discovering assets, examining
transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.”18
In Chapter 11 and 13 cases,
the examination may also include matters relevant to the operation to the debtor’s business and
to the confirmation of the plan. The scope of the examination is “unfettered and broad;”19
in fact
it is broader than under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is often described as a
permissible “fishing expedition.”20
Because of this, Bankruptcy Courts may prohibit the use of
Rule 2004 examinations under the “pending proceeding rule” when the information sought
should be obtained in other litigation. Bankruptcy Courts, however, will allow examination into
matters that outside the of scope litigation. Consider conducting an examination to explore
potential fraudulent conveyances, owners’ ability to contribute financially to the plan, and/or the
possible need for appointment of a trustee to run the business. A move for a wide-ranging 2004
examination needs to be carefully considered for its appearances, given the bias against delay or
diversion in the process; ideally, an effort for a broad-based examination should be brought by
multiple creditors so as not to make it appear self-serving. The same reservation about timing
also applies here: don’t assume you can wait on a 2004 to protect your clients’ rights, or creditor
rights more broadly.
File proofs of claim
Every creditor in a bankruptcy must file a proof of claim. A proof of claim is short, standard
document in which the amount, nature and priority of a claim is set forth.21
Failure to file a
18 In re Enron Corp. 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002).
19 In re Dinubilo, 177 B.R. 932, 939 (E.D. Cal. 1993) (quoting In re GHR Energy Corp., 33 B.R. 451, 453 (Bankr.
D. Mass. 1983); In re Wash. Mut. Inc., 408 B.R. 45, 49 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)); see also In re Bennett Funding Grp.,
Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996).
20 See, e.g., Matter of M4 Enter., Inc., 190 B.R. 471, 474 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995); see also In re Drexel Burnham