NCBJ 2021: Legislative Wish Lists and Realities

This is a combination of two programs. One of the NCBJ plenary sessions offered a Shark Tank like program where three lawyers pitched their proposals to reform the Bankruptcy Code. Meanwhile, at the ABI luncheon, Bill Brandt and Robert Keach offered their prognostications as to what might actually change in the Code. Since both programs involved legislation, I have chosen to combine them here. As you read through this article, you should note that the first part contains the idealism of would-be reformers while the second part contains the realpolitik. 

Shark Tank

Student Loans

In the first program, John Rao of the National Consumer Law Center offered his proposal to amend 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(8) to rollback dischargeability of student loans to the law as it existed in in 1998 when student loans could be discharged after seven years or on a showing of undue hardship.  He said that the seven-year period deals with the concern that people can come straight out of school and file bankruptcy. He said it's not a complete solution. He said we still need to deal with cost of higher education. 

To make the case for change, he gave the illustration of Karen in Arkansas. She borrowed $10,000 thirty years ago. She never used her degree. Over thirty years, she paid $20,000 but still owed $106,000. Mr. Rao said that there is something fundamentally broken with a system if that is how we treat our debtors. Now the federal student loan creditors can garnish her Social Security and tax refunds and even the Earned Income Tax Credit. There is no statute of limitations on federal student loans so her debts will only disappear when she dies. 

Why did Congress change the law?  (Congress changed the law in 2005 to add some private student loans to the list of non-dischargeable debts and eliminate the ability to discharge student loans after seven years). He pointed out that there was not a single Congressional hearing or GAO report on abuse. He characterized the change in law as a Congressional gimmick to balance the budget. 

Mr. Rao was asked if his proposal would protect the public fisc. There are $1.7 trillion in federal student loans. Why not require payment of disposable income over period?

Mr. Rao responded that most debts are performing. Only about 10% in default. There is no evidence that denying discharge increases revenues to government. Instead, the federal government can capitalize the interest and seek returns that would make a predatory lender blush. The problem with requiring debtors to complete a chapter 13 is that about 50% of Chapter 13 debtors never get a discharge.

Mr. Rao was asked about his proposal to leave undue hardship in in his proposal. He was asked whether it be better to have objective criteria for undue hardship. Mr. Rao said that objective criteria would help but we already have a workable standard for undue hardship in connection with reaffirmation agreements and it would make sense to use that standard. However, he pointed out that the debtors who need relief the most can't afford to litigate. 

He was asked whether his proposal would roil the markets. Wouldn't lenders increase the price to address the risk? He pointed out that the pricing only affects private lenders. When private loans were made non-dischargeable in 2005 there was either no decrease in rates or an actual increase based on different studies.

President Biden has proposed cancelling some student loan debt. Doing this would be a stimulus to economy according to Moody's as more people would be able to buy homes and have children. However, requiring bankruptcy to get that cancellation would avoid the moral hazard of general cancellation. 

KERPs

 

Metta Kurth pitched a proposal to close loopholes to BACPA's limitations on "pay to stay." She called her proposal "stop the heist." In 2005, BAPCPA limited Key Employee Retention Programs ("KERPs") by requiring that a company demonstrate three things: that the person receiving the KERP has received a better offer, that their services are essential and that the amount of the KERP is either not more than 10 times the mean amount paid to non-management employees for similar purposes or, if no similar amounts were paid out in the prior year, it did not exceed 25% of any similar payment made to an insider during the prior year. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 503(c).     

Some companies shifted away from KERPs and went to "keeps," incentive payments to be earned for meeting certain benchmarks. Ms. Kurth said that "keeps" had a greater sense of integrity. However, other companies made an end run around the KERP rules by simply making these payments pre-petition. She gave the example of JC Penney which paid out $7.5 million to four executive five days before the petition. 

Ms. Kurth proposed to amend 11 U.S.C. Sec. 548 in three ways:

(a) Existing Sec. 548(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) states that insider compensation given for less than reasonably equivalent value and outside of the ordinary course of business can be recovered as a fraudulent transfer. She would extend this to apply to all insider compensation given during the 90 days before bankruptcy.

(b)  She would also add a provision that insider compensation would be presumed to be for less than reasonably equivalent value if it was greater than the normal pre-bankruptcy compensation and did not meet the requirement for a KERP; and

(c)  Make non-dissenting directors who approve compensation in violation of this provision liable similar to state laws applicable to illegal dividends. 

She was asked if companies would just give out insider bonuses 91 days before bankruptcy if her proposal was adopted. She answered that the petition date is often fluid and that 90 days will catch most abuse. 

She said that her proposal would motivate companies to use a "keep" or stay within guardrails for KERPs during the runup to the petition.

She acknowledged that her proposal would not fix the imbalance in executive compensation. 20 years ago, executives earned 70 times the wage of their typical worker while today that ratio is now 200 times.

She said that she was not trying to fix entire system, just the perception of abuse.

(Ed.: While I admire Ms. Kurth's enthusiasm, her proposal would continue the trend of making the Bankruptcy Code resemble the Tax Code in its complexity. The problem with ever more specific prohibitions is that ever more clever lawyers will find ways around them. To be very clear, she had identified a very real and very serious problem. My quibble is with the specifics of her proposal rather than the need for it)

The Means Test

Eric Brunstad proposing the means test as the gateway for determining substantial abuse. He proposed going back to the standard existing before BAPCPA when Bankruptcy Judges had discretion to find substantial abuse based on the circumstances of the case rather than a statutory presumption. 

He said that the means test was a solution in search of a problem that never existed and a bad solution at that.

He said that judges know abuse when they see it and have ample tools to address it when it actually arises.

He asked the rhetorical question of where did the means test come from? He said it came from the history of credit card underwriting. At one time, credit card underwriting was done on an individual basis. Then it went to a portfolio underwriting system. The model predicted 4% default rate. As time went on, credit cards became less profitable. He said that the credit card companies wanted to squeeze a couple more bucks out of the system by making bankruptcy more difficult and expensive to pursue. (Ed. Prof. Ronald Mann described this as the "sweatbox" in an influential paper). 

He said that the means test was a very inefficient solution. If you are $1 above the test, you are deemed to be a substantial abuse. 

Prof. Brunstad said that the empirical data said abuse was not out there. He also said that a one size fits all test was not useful. He quoted Tolstoy who said, "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” He said that by analogy, every abusive debtor is abusive in its own way. 

He stressed that there was not a problem with too many people filing bankruptcy. According to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 43 million people were in financial distress after the Great Recession, but only 1.5 million filed bankruptcy.  He said that people do not file for bankruptcy willy-nilly

He repeated the proverb that you can't get blood out of stone and then described the means test as a very expensive blood test for the stone.

He said that this kind of discretionary thing (i.e., ferreting out abuse) is what bankruptcy judges are paid to do.

He also said that there is a huge externality problem. He asked who gets the benefit and who bears the cost? The credit card companies reap the benefit from debtors who continue to pay because they cannot afford to file bankruptcy. The cost is borne by higher fees paid by debtors. He said that if a debtor is required to file chapter 13, it is like a 25% tax. 

In the end, the audience voted to invest in all three proposals. Unfortunately, legislative reform depends on a dysfunctional Congress, not what bankruptcy judges and professionals would like to see. That offer a nice segue into the second legislative program I watched.

ABI's Program on Legislative Likelihoods

The three proposals contained in the Shark Tank program were each thought provoking. However, when the American Bankruptcy Institute put on a program on likely changes to legislation, it focused on different proposals altogether. Bill Brandt and Robert Keach are both ABI members who have been active in proposing legislation. Although ABI does not take positions on legislative as a group, its individual members have been active in lobbying Congress. I want to stress that the very opinionated and outspoken Mr. Brandt and Mr. Keach were speaking for themselves rather than for the ABI as an institution. 

SubChapter V

Mr. Brandt started the conversation off with discussion of SubChapter V. He said that when it was passed, the debt limit of $2.7 million was too low. Shortly after it was passed, they were able to increase the limit to $7.5 million but only on a temporary basis. Now he said that the goal would be to increase the limit to $20 million. However, at higher limits, SubChapter V would take on more of a hybrid nature. He said that U.S. Trustee fees would need to kick in at somewhere between $7.5 million to $10.0 million to keep the program funded. He also said that legislation would likely give courts the option to have a creditors' committee beginning at $12-$15 million.

He said that if the debt limit was increase to $20 million, it would cover 95% of Chapter 11 cases. He said that this would take the wind out of the venue issue, which he described as "our abortion issue."

This raises two very interesting questions. Was he assuming that mega SubChapter V cases would not be forum shopped? If the law allows forum shopping and litigants see an advantage to doing so, why would they stop? Also, it wouldn't address the problem of the large public companies seeking out favorable venues to the detriment of smaller creditors, employees, retirees and other constituencies. Also, as a Texan, I am very familiar with the emotions triggered by abortion. On the one hand are those with moral certainty about the importance of lives as yet unborn while on the other there is the moral certainty of those who want to control their own bodies. Abortion stirs the outrage of moral certainty in its combatants. Is bankruptcy venue really that divisive or was Mr. Brandt merely engaging in hyperbole?

 Mr. Keach acknowledged that he had lost the debate over having a facilitating trustee in SubChapter V and that it was good that he lost. He described the trustee as one of the reasons why the Small Business Reorganization Act has worked so well.

Mr. Brandt said that raising the SubV debt limit could make its way into a reconciliation bill because it would raise fees. He also explained that because the support of Sen. Grassley was critical that SubChapter V was intentionally made similar to Chapter 12.

Venue

Mr. Brandt had a very cynical view on venue reform. He said that with this President and Rep. Nadler chairing the House Judiciary Committee, venue would be a non-starter. He said that venue was a good way for Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Warren to raise a lot of money but that it would not be a factor for the balance of this decade.

Mr. Keach said that the option to allow affiliate filings was designed to placate New York bankruptcy lawyers but "no one in New York believes that."

(Ed.: Dissenting Opinion here. For the last three years, Sens. Cornyn and Warren have worked together on a venue bill. This year bills have been introduced into the Senate and House at an earlier stage with more co-sponsors than before. As cases like Purdue Pharma draw national outrage, bankruptcy venue will continue to build momentum. However, I must acknowledge that our scrappy, grass-roots crusade has very determined and well-organized opposition). 

Mr. Brandt said that there was a study that concluded that the bankruptcy industry had the same effect for the Delaware economy as having a minor league baseball team would have. He also said that having increased debt limits for SubChapter V would be a pretty good second choice for the venue reformers. 

Mr. Brandt noted that the fire for venue reform has weakened as the New York-Delaware duopoly has expanded to include Houston and Virginia. (Ed.: Dallas, TX, Corpus Christi, TX and Charlotte, N.C. have also been the recipients of recent attempts at forum shopping. Will forum shopping become so widespread as to draw a collective "meh" from the bar? As the blogger, I get to ask the questions, but I honestly don't have an answer).

He said that 10-15% of the Senate will always oppose venue reform making it an uphill battle. 

He also said that another needed reform would be to allow a single asset real estate debtor to be a SubV debtor if it was a landlord to a small business debtor.

Third Party Releases

Mr. Keach mentioned that when Jon Oliver did a program on third party releases, he had a researcher spend an hour with Mr. Keach. He said that Mr. Oliver gave the issue a very serious presentation. He then said that the issue was not going anywhere. He characterized it as a solution in search of a problem. He said that it was not the bankruptcy system that was broken but the tort system. He said that bankruptcy delivers money to victims faster and more efficiently than the tort system. He said that it is easy to forget that what we are about is compensating people. He said that if you want to punish people, prosecute them. "If you can't prosecute them, then shut up."

Mr. Brandt said that legislation barring third party releases even with an opt out were going nowhere. He said it was a chance for Democrats to say that they voted against Darth Vader. 

Student Loans

Mr. Brandt said that the Fresh Start Bill proposed by Sen. Dick Durbin is the closest bill that might actually achieve passage. It would reinstate dischargeability after ten years and is close to the ABI Commission's proposal. However, he said it was "probably not a this year thing." He added that bankruptcy reform always starts out with consumer provisions. He indicated that it would not be this Congress. Probably the next Congress or the one after that and it would be part of a bill with lots of ornaments on it.

He said that one problem with achieving bankruptcy reform is that there is not an association of past and future debtors but that student loan borrowers vote. Unfortunately, they cannot afford campaign contributions. 

Mr. Keach said that the purveyors of private student loans hired really good lobbyists in the past but that maybe the problem is becoming too significant to ignore.

Final Thought: I really appreciated the fact that Mr. Brandt and Mr. Keach didn't pull any punches. I may not have agreed with them, but they certainly gave their unvarnished opinions without resorting to polite euphemisms. 

NCBJ Awards Edition

One of the pleasures of attending the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges is seeing good lawyers and judges being recognized for their contributions to the profession.   This year I attended three awards presentations.

The Commercial Law League of America presented the Lawrence P. King Award to Eric Brunstad, Jr.  Mr. Brunstad is a skilled advocate who has argued ten cases to the Supreme Court.  A consummate over-achiever, he has an LLM and a JSD from Yale Law School.  A JSM is the equivalent of a Ph.D. in Law.  He has taught at Yale Law School, NYU School of Law, Harvard Law School and the Georgetown University Law Center.  

In his acceptance speech, he acknowledged his debt to Lawrence King and many prior winners of the King Award, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren.   He said that he wanted to teach Secured Transactions at Yale and asked then-Prof. Warren what the best way to do that would be.   She said that the answer was to teach Secured Transactions at Harvard, which she helped him to do.   He said that it worked and that when he return to Yale, he got his own parking place and an assistant.

ABI Commission Considers Future of Chapter 11 (Austin Hearing Pt. 1)

The ABI Commission studying reform of Chapter 11 met for its seventeenth and final time at the UT Bankruptcy Conference in Austin, Texas on Friday November 22, 2013.   The Commission heard from a total of eight witnesses on a variety of topics.   Seven of the eight witnesses touched on the venue issue with a substantial majority favoring reform.   Part 1 will discuss the future of Chapter 11 and proposed reforms to address the Stern problem, while Part 2 will discuss venue.

The Future of Chapter 11

Commission Co-Chair Al Togut introduced the topic with a discussion of how the world had changed since the Bankruptcy Code was adopted. He stated that in 1979, companies were likely to be based in the United States, employ American workers and have very little secured debt. Today, companies are likely to be multinational and have manufacturing facilities overseas with assets that are frequently leveraged to the point that unsecured creditors are out of the money. He stated that Commissioner Ken Klee who worked on drafting the Bankruptcy Code estimated that the Code would have a shelf life of no more than 30 years and then would have to be reworked. This set the stage for a discussion on the future of chapter 11.

Former Bankruptcy Judge William Greendyke and practitioner Buzz Rochelle discussed the future of chapter 11 with particular emphasis on the results of a survey of Texas bankruptcy lawyers. Among the conclusions of the survey were that Chapter 11 is being used for more section 363 sales, the process is faster today, the use of Chief Restructuring Officers is largely positive and Chapter 11 fills a role in providing clean assets to buy but that Chapter 11 has gotten more expensive.

In response to a question, Greendyke stated that section 363 and increased costs make cases move faster. He said that "faster is less expensive and less expensive is better."

By a two to one margin, respondents felt that the U.S. Trustee has been a net negative in chapter 11 cases. One commenter described the U.S. Trustee as "bring(ing) only the ants to the picnic." Judge Greendyke was more sanguine stating that his experiences with the U.S. Trustee's program as a judge had been positive. He said that the reason for the negative responses was "difficult to discern from the survey results" but that "there are different personalities in different offices" and there can be disparities in prosecutorial discretion.

Buzz Rochelle (brother of Bloomberg News correspondent Bill Rochelle) described how problems with the jurisdictional system of the Bankruptcy Courts have persisted. He stated:

I went to college on what my father earned litigating jurisdiction. My sons went to college on what I earned on jurisdiction.

He said that the problems in the current system were "way past the irritation point" and used the illustration of a lawyer who told a Dallas bankruptcy judge that she was not bound by the Court's confirmation order "because Stern said she wasn't."

Rochelle also sounded an apocalyptic note about the future of bankruptcy, stating that "unsecured creditors do not regard the bankruptcy court as their friend" and that "the message sent is that this is a place for debtor's management and more than that for secured creditors."

He urged the commission to reconsider the absolute priority rule saying that "it is not holy writ." Rochelle argued that the absolute priority rule was originally intended to lead to a reasonable accord and to protect the little people, but has been turned on its head as a tool to protect secured lenders.

Rochelle described claims trading as a casino that "does not serve a legitimate economic function." In response to a question, he said that claims traders are in a "very dicy ethical situation." He said that they have studied real hard and can accurately gauge the value of a claim but will pay only a small fraction of that amount to the original creditor. He also said that claims trading gives creditors an easy out of a case and causes them to lower underwriting standards. He recommended that claims buyers only be allowed to vote what they had paid to purchase claims so that they would not have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of cases.

Mr. Rochelle added that the secured lender's group has become "a wild place with competing agendas" because of claims trading He said that all they are interested in is the dividend and not reorganization, which he said "brings the reorganization system into disrepute," a result that he described as "not cool."
 

Commissioner James Markus asked Greendyke and Rochelle if there were conflicts in their testimony with regard to the need to choose between classes of creditors or preserve value. Judge Greendyke stated that "there is nothing wrong with section 363 sales" and that just because "there are less opportunities for unsecured creditors does not mean that there should be a tax imposed on secured creditors." Mr. Rochelle said that he would "put down his torch and pitchfork for a moment" and acknowledged that the Bankruptcy Code is the tail of the dog while the dog itself is the financial system. He said that the huge growth in neo-lenders and non-bank lenders "makes the banks we grew up with look like sweet, good-natured Sunday School teachers." He admitted that "you can't change that in the Code" but that "we don't have to lay back and enjoy it." He said that there should be some disincentive to the lender who grabs onto everything. He added that

The common law grows in response to problems. This is a problem.

The shy and retiring Mr. Rochelle added:

The real question in my mind is why the federal government should be subsidizing the liquidation efforts of one group of people.

He further stated that the justification for section 363 sales is preserving jobs and that we are seeing far fewer jobs preserved.

Stern and the Allocation of Jurisdiction

Veteran Supreme Court litigator Eric Brunstad stated that "our current jurisdictional system is broken." He recommended amending the definition of core proceeding to move counterclaims to claims and fraudulent transfers to the non-core category. He said that "there is a very small category of things that need to be moved from the core bucket to the non-core bucket."

He also recommended a statutory process for consent which would be similar to what is used in the U.S. Magistrate Judge system. In response to a question, he said that he proposed express written consent because he wanted to take the most conservative position.

Finally, he recommended that the Code's jurisdictional scheme be construed to avoid conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and that Bankruptcy Judges be specifically authorized to submit proposed findings and conclusions in any case in which they could not enter a final judgment.

Brunstad also emphasized the need to get as much of the case as possible in front of the bankruptcy judge and encouraged the practice of District Judges re-referring matters to the Bankruptcy Court.

He also said that one problem with the Supreme Court's approach to Article III jurisprudence is that it relies on the traditional model of the judge as a neutral adjudicator while the bankruptcy court is "the quintessential problem solving court." Commission Reporter Prof. Michelle Harner asked whether the judge in a problem-solving court is placed in a mediator/negotiator role. In response, Brunstad stated that you don't have to use that particular label, but that it is the "reality of large chapter 11 cases." He urged the Commission to "be up front and recognize it."

NCBJ 2012: From Stern's Fallout to Arguing Before the Supreme Court

The National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges consistently delivers some of the best continuing legal education in the country for bankruptcy lawyers.   Here are some highlights from this year’s conference.

I started my day Thursday with the Bernstein-Burkley firm’s Wake Up and Run.   For the past three year’s the firm has sponsored a daybreak 5k run at the conference.   This year’s run drew about 80 participants who ran, jogged or meandered around the waterfront in San Diego.    At 33:58, I was near the back of the pack, so I can’t tell who the fastest judge was or how the Fifth Circuit fared against the Ninth Circuit.   The fact that so many people would get together at 6:30 a.m. to go for a communal run shows that you don’t have to be crazy to practice bankruptcy law, but it helps.

The Reaction to Stern v. Marshall

So much has been written about Stern v. Marshall that it is hard to say anything new.   The panel did a good job on focusing on the judicial reaction to the decision rather than rehashing the story of the former Playboy playmate who didn’t get her multi-million judgment because Congress created an unconstitutional allocation of work between the bankruptcy courts and the district courts.    The panel gamely tried to wade through the reams of decisions mentioning Stern v. Marshall.  As of October 25, there were 712 of them.    The trend appears to be that while there are still about 50 decisions a month mentioning the Supreme Court ruling, the sky is not falling.   Out of a sample of cases, the panel found that a majority of Stern-based motions to withdraw reference, motions to dismiss and motion to abstain had been denied.    Two early decisions which suggested that bankruptcy courts lacked the power to even consider matters which were core proceedings but could not be constitutionally decided by the bankruptcy court were walked back by subsequent decisions.   

The most important response to Stern v. Marshall is that a few courts have developed local rules to deal with the decision and the national rules committee has proposed a set of rules changes as well.   The Southern District of New York’s rules have provided the template for several other courts that have addressed the issue.  Their rules can be found here.   

The Southern District rules attempt to require parties to state whether they will consent to entry of a final judgment by the Bankruptcy Court or whether they object.   The new rules require a statement of consent in the first pleading filed in an adversary proceeding, in the first pleading filed by a defendant, and upon removal o f a case.    These rules reflect a belief, which is probably warranted, that the parties can consent to decision by a non-article III judge.   New Rule 9033-1 provide that if a matter is core but the court cannot constitutionally enter a final judgment, the Court shall enter proposed findings and conclusions “as if it is a non-core proceeding.”

The proposed national rules amendments can be found here.  The proposed rules eliminate the core/non-core terminology from rules 7008, 7012, 9027 and 9033.  Instead, parties will simply state whether they consent to entry of a final order by the bankruptcy court.   New Rule 7016(b) states that the court shall, either sua sponte or on timely motion of one of the parties decide  whether to enter a final judgment, enter proposed findings and conclusions or “take some other action.”   Parties may submit comments on the proposed rules amendments until February 15, 2013.

What the Puck:  Sports Teams in Bankruptcy

This presentation discussed the bankruptcies of the Phoenix Coyotes, the Texas Rangers and the Los Angeles Dodgers.   According to the panelists, a sports league is nothing more than a cooperative of the teams.    When an owner acquires a team, he agrees to give the league veto power over who will own the team and where it will be located.    This gives the league enormous power over the teams and theoretically gives it the power to veto most decisions that would be made in a bankruptcy proceeding.  In bankruptcy terms, the debtor is a party to an executory contract which either is not subject to being assumed or at or cannot be assumed in a manner compatible with the proposed reorganization.  Nevertheless, bankruptcy has been successful to varying degrees because of the incentive of the fellow owners to allow the bankrupt team to, in the words of Tom Salerno, “bend the league rules.”

The three cases each had their own unique stories.  The Phoenix Coyotes were losing money because Arizona was not a particularly good market for a hockey club.   Their owner wanted to sell out to a Canadian technology entrepreneur who would move the team.   However, the league had vetoed the proposed sale.   The Texas Rangers, on the other hand, were a profitable team, whose parent company was mired in debt.   The team owners and the league were both happy to allow the team to be sold to a group led by Nolan Ryan.   However, to get the benefit of bankruptcy, they had to allow a competitive sales process.   The Los Angeles Dodgers were losing money and had been drained of $240 million by owner Frank McCord.  McCord wanted to sell the media rights for a small fortune and hang onto the team.   The league did not want to allow this to happen.

All three cases resulted in auctions.   In the case of the Phoenix Coyotes, the league bought the team, even though it did not have the highest bid.  Three years later the team is still losing money and the league has not found a new owner.   In the case of the Texas Rangers, a sales process designed to favor the Nolan Ryan group was upset when Judge Michael Lynn convinced the parties to allow genuine competitive bidding.   Dallas Mavericks bad boy Mark Cuban almost got the team until he was outbid by the Ryan group.    In the Dodgers case, the team sold for $2 billion, which will likely allow Frank McCord to walk away with anywhere from hundreds of millions to a billion dollars.   In each case, the bankruptcy case transitioned the team to a new owner acceptable to the league (although in the Coyotes case, that owner was the league itself).

A Grimm Fairy Tale:   Perspectives in the Next Chapter of the U.S. Mortgage Market Story

My notes from this panel would fill a ten page article.   However, a few highlights will have to suffice.
  

New York Times journalist and author Gretchen Morgenson is the author of Reckless Endangerment:  How Outsized Ambition, Greed and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.   She argued that the government’s role in subsidizing home ownership through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corrupted the mortgage market.   When the executives, shareholders and lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie were able to get part of the subsidies for themselves, they promoted more demand for subsidized mortgages.  The private mortgage market which is based on securitization was rampant with conflicts of interest and lack of disclosure.    Due to the collapse of the private mortgage market, Fannie and Freddie now comprise 95% of the mortgage market.

She said that if the government is going to subsidize housing finance, it should do so directly on the government’s own balance sheet.   She also said that the private sector must be “deeply engaged in building a market that is trustworthy, clean and not corrupt.      

Another speaker pointed out the extent of the mortgage foreclosure crisis.   3.5 million foreclosures have been completed, 2 million more are in the pipeline and 7 million more are at risk.   Foreclosure has been shown to reduce the value of foreclosed homes by 27% and to reduce the value of homes in the neighborhood by 1%.   

Franklin Codel, head of Mortgage Production for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage stated that Wells Fargo works very hard with borrowers experiencing financial distress but servicers and investors were not ready for the elevated level of foreclosure activity.   Nevertheless, he said that Wells Fargo completes two mortgage modifications for every foreclosure.

Clifford White, Executive Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees highlighted the role of the bankruptcy system in dealing with the mortgage crisis.   He said that “our experienced in the bankruptcy system has been that large banks were not performing well” and that the bankruptcy system has been at the forefront of identifying problems in the mortgage industry.   He added that 300,000 distressed homeowners go into chapter 13 each year.

Mr. White argued that the bankruptcy courts saw the mortgage crisis sooner than other segments of the economy, but that the U.S. Trustee’s program “faced an onslaught of resistance” to efforts to try to address the problem.   

Mr. White also stated that the bankruptcy system should think of itself as a regulatory mechanism. He highlighted the disclosures required by the amended bankruptcy rules.   He said that these rules “affect bank processors in a way that no other federal rules do.”

Both Mr.Codell and Steven Swartout, who is the Executive Vice-President for a community bank, stated that their institutions have a high level of modifying mortgages that they own but that they have difficulty getting responses from the investors on mortgages they service.  

Ms. Morgenson was critical of the HAMP program, describing it as “ill-conceived” and with very few sticks attached.   The program was voluntary and did not address second liens which were often retained by the originating bank.   She questioned whether the government was trying to strike a balance between protecting the financial sector and protecting bad actors.  

Mr. Swartout explained that there were different markets for long-term and short-term mortgages.  He said that there were only a limited number of entities that could take on the risk of a 30 year fixed rate mortgage.    As a community bank, their market is in making two, three or five year callable mortgages.   He said that the expectation is that these mortgages would be repriced at maturity.  However, he said that they would not meet the requirements of a “Qualified Mortgage” under proposed federal regulations.     

In closing Gretchen Morgenson complimented the work of the bankruptcy courts, stating, “without you questioning what came into your courtrooms we wouldn’t be even this close to a turnaround in the housing market.”

Justice Stevens and Advocacy Before the Supreme Court

The Commercial Law League luncheon featured the presentation of the Lawrence King Award to retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens and a keynote address by Supreme Court advocate Eric Brunstad.    (Unfortunately, Justice Stevens was not able to accept the award in person).  The two blended nicely into a program on bankruptcy and the Supreme Court.  

A few stories about Justice Stevens:

Shortly after he was appointed to the Seventh Circuit, the court considered the case of protesters who had occupied the state capital grounds.   The legislature voted the protesters in contempt of the legislature and had them arrested.   This was during the height of the Nixon law and order days. While the other members of the panel had no problem with the arrest, it troubled Justice Stevens and he dissented.   He also assumed that he had lost his chance to be considered for the Supreme Court.  However, when President Nixon resigned and President Ford was looking for a nominee who was not closely tied to Nixon, Stevens got the nod.

Justice Stevens said that brilliance was not how much you knew but whether you used it in a wise and humane manner.

Justice Stevens, unlike many appellate judges, was most comfortable around practicing lawyers.

Bankruptcy Judge James Gregg accepted the award on behalf of Justice Stevens.    He described him as intelligent, inquisitive and cordial, the opposite of pompous and egotistical.    He said that Justice Stevens said that his most interesting bankruptcy case was Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 126 S.Ct. 990 (2006) in which he found that sovereign immunity did not protect a state from recovery of a preference, a decision which dialed back the Supreme Court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence which Justice Stevens felt had been exalted beyond anything the framers intended.

Eric Brunstad the keynote speaker, has argued ten cases before the Supreme Court including this year’s RadLAX decision.  He noted that Justice Stevens had authored three bankruptcy opinions:   Marrama, Katz and Till.    He praised Justice Stevens for being willing to consider cases on a case by case basis rather than being bound by a fixed judicial philosophy.   

He said that Justice Stevens’ approach to the law was exemplified by his decision in Marrama, which denied a debtor’s ability to convert from chapter 7 to chapter 13 despite statutory language referring to an absolute right.   He said that Justice Stevens viewed the inherent power of the court as an extension of its powers in equity to deny relief to a party with unclean hands.    He believed that even though you may not be able to waive a right, you could forfeit it.

Justice Stevens was also a big fan of liberty, viewing it as an interest which transcended the written words of the Constitution.  

Mr. Brunstad told several anecdotes about the Supreme Court.   On one day, it had snowed particularly hard.   A lawyer received a call from the court clerk asking if he needed a right to court.  Much to his surprise, an SUV showed up with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy.   The Chief fretted that they would be late and told the driver, “I order you to drive through all red lights” to which Justice Kennedy replied, “do you have that power?”

On another occasion, Chief Justice Rehnquist was quizzing an attorney about how to limit the discretion of bankruptcy judges.   Before the advocate could get a word out, Justice Breyer quipped, “Isn’t that what they’re paid to do?”    

On another occasion, one of the Justices had asked about a long and involved hypothetical which left the lawyer puzzled.   Justice Scalia told him, “Just say yes,” which the lawyer did.   The follow up question was “Why?”  When the puzzled lawyer turned to Justice Scalia, he said, “You’re on your own.”

Brunstad said that he takes his approach for arguing cases from Aristotle, focusing on Logos—which refers to logic, Athos—which refers to credibility of the speaker and Pathos—which refers to an emotional connection with the audience.

Pre-Bankruptcy Ethics:  How to Avoid the Minefields Before Combat Begins

Prof. Nancy Rapoport had some good perspective on the role played by counsel for the Debtor-in-Possession.   She pointed out that, on the one hand, counsel represents the Debtor-in-Possession, which is a fiduciary to the creditors.   While counsel is not a fiduciary to the creditors, counsel is an officer of the court.    This may impose higher duties on counsel for the DIP than counsel for a private party.   She noted that counsel is generally protected when advising the DIP between several acceptable courses of action.  On the other hand, she said of possibility.”

Richard Carmody of Adams & Reese discussed the importance of representing the interests of the DIP and not its principals.  He pointed out that in the Diocese of Spokane case, the attorneys who represented the Diocese in its chapter 11 have now been sued alleging that they represented the interest of the former Bishop rather than the Diocese.  

Chapter 11 Update:  Hot and Emerging Issues

This presentation discussed several important new cases in the chapter 11 arena.   Here are a few cases to be aware of.

In Marathon Petroleum Co., LLC v. Cohen (In re Delco Oil Co.), 599 F.3d 1255 (11^th Cir. 2010), the debtor used cash collateral without permission.  A supplier who was paid for goods actually delivered was required to repay the funds as an unauthorized post-petition transfer.   On the other hand, in Abbot v. Arch Wood Protection, Inc. (In re Wood Treaters, LLC), 2012 WL 3059379 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), a vendor who received payment from a debtor who obtained permission to use cash collateral but was not in compliance with the order escaped liability.   The cases raise the issue of how much due diligence a party dealing with a DIP must perform in order to qualify for a good faith defense to an action under Sec. 549.

In re Heritage Highgate, 679 F.3d 132 (3^rd Cir. 2012) raised an interesting valuation question.  An appraisal at the beginning of the case showed that the debtor’s property exceeded the value of both the first and second liens.  By confirmation, the starting value of the property less lots sold during the bankruptcy was less than the amount of the first lien.    However, the debtor’s cash flows showed that future sales of lots would bring in enough money to pay both liens.   Critically, the second lienholder did not offer any independent appraisal testimony.   The court held that the debtor’s cash flows, which assumed future appreciation in the value of the debtor’s property, was not a valuation as of confirmation.   As a result, the second lien was completely underwater.

In re Loop 76, LLC, 465 B.R. 541 (9^th Cir. BAP 2012) went against the majority of cases in allowing separate classification of a deficiency claim.   The court allowed separate classification because the deficiency claim had the benefit of personal guaranties.  

Several recent cases have applied the Till decision to chapter 11 cases.   In In re Cottonwood Corners Phase V, LLC, 2012 WL 566426 (Bankr. D. N.M. 2012), the debtor sought to reinstate the debt at the contract rate of 5.8%   Using a formula approach based on the 10 year treasury bill rate plus risk factor points, the court found that 7.0% was appropriate.   In In re North Valley Mall, LLC, 2012 WL  1071646 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2012), the Court used a blended “tranche” approach to come up with an interest rate of 8.5%.   Finally, in In re Walkabout Creek Limited Dividend Housing Association, LP, 460 B.R. 567 (Bankr. D. D.C. 2012), the court said that the interest rate should be at least 1% above the equivalent treasury bill rate.   Because this exceeded the rate proposed by the debtor, the court denied confirmation.    The court said that the prime + 1-3% formula in Till did not even rise to the level of dicta.   These cases strike me as wrongly decided.    The chapter 13 statuory language interpreted in Till is identical to the language in chapter 11.   Most chapter 11 cases are too small to support dueling experts.   As a result, the Till formula presents an appropriate starting point for most cases.

Two recent cases have rejected use of the “indubitable equivalent” prong of section 1129(b)(2)(A).   In In re River East Plaza, LLC, 669 F.3d 826 (7^th Cir. 2012), the court rejected replacing the debtor’s real property collateral with treasury bills.    If this is not the indubitable equivalent, I don’t know what would be.   In Cottonwood Corners Phase V, the debtor proposed to repay arrearages on the debt over time without interest on the basis that the arrearages already included default interest.   This did not work.

Gentry v. Siegel, 668 F.3d 83 (4^th Cir. 2012) is an interesting case on class proofs of claims.   If a party files a class proof of claim and the class is certified, the class is approved retroactively.   If the class is not certified, the court must allow class members additional time to file a claim.   Procedurally, a class claim is deemed allowed in the absence of an objection.   If there is an objection, the class rep must seek to invoke the adversary rules to obtain class certification.    In the specific case, the court did not certify the class because a class of several hundred employees was not necessary in a case with thousands of creditors.