In re Chrysler LLC
Citation | 576 F.3d 108 |
Decision Date | 05 June 2009 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 09-2311-bk. |
Parties | IN RE CHRYSLER LLC, Debtor. Indiana State Police Pension Trust, Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, and Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund, Objectors-Appellants, The Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer-Victims of Chrysler LLC, Objector-Appellant, William Lovitz, Farbod Nourian, Brian Catalon, Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Action, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and Public Citizen, Objectors-Appellants, Patricia Pascale, Objector-Appellant, Chrysler LLC, aka Chrysler Aspen, aka Chrysler Town & Country, aka Chrysler 300, aka Chrysler Sebring, aka Chrysler PT Cruiser, aka Dodge, aka Dodge Avenger, aka Dodge Caliber, aka Dodge Challenger, aka Dodge Dakota, aka Dodge Durango, aka Dodge Grand Caravan, aka Dodge Journey, aka Dodge Nitro, aka Dodge Ram, aka Dodge Sprinter, aka Dodge Viper, aka Jeep, aka Jeep Commander, aka Jeep Compass, aka Jeep Grand Cherokee, aka Jeep Liberty, aka Jeep Patriot, aka Jeep Wrangler, aka Moper, aka Plymouth, aka Dodge Charger, Debtors-Appellees, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO ("UAW"), Appellee, Fiat S.P.A. and New Carco Acquisition LLC, Appellees, Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC, Appellee, The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Appellee, United States of America, Appellee, Export Development Canada, Appellee.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Steven L. Holley (John L. Warden, Laurent S. Wiesel, on the brief) Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees Fiat S.p.A. and New CarCo Acquisition LLC.
Martin J. Bienenstock (Judy G.Z. Liu, on the brief) Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC.
Kenneth H. Eckstein, (Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Thomas Moers Mayer, on the brief) Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.
Jeannette A. Vargas, Assistant United States Attorney, (Tara LaMorte, Li Yu, David S. Jones, on the brief) for Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, and John Rapisardi, Of Counsel to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee United States of America.
Michael J. Edelman, Vedder Price P.C., New York, NY, for Appellee Export Development Canada.
Joan Pilver, Assistant Attorney General, (Matthew F. Fitzsimmons, on the brief) for Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Amicus Curiae State of Connecticut.
Roger Netzer, (Lisa D. Bentley, Emma-Ann Deacon, on the brief) Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY, and Robert G. Zack, Chief Legal Officer, Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate Fund and Oppenheimer Master Loan Fund, LLC, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate Fund and Oppenheimer Master Loan Fund, LLC.
Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, KEARSE and SACK, Circuit Judges.
The Indiana State Police Pension Trust, the Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, and the Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund (collectively, the "Indiana Pensioners" or "Pensioners"), along with various tort claimants and others, appeal from an order entered in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Arthur J. Gonzalez, Bankruptcy Judge, dated June 1, 2009 (the "Sale Order"), authorizing the sale of substantially all of the debtor's assets to New CarCo Acquisition LLC ("New Chrysler"). On June 2, 2009 we granted the Indiana Pensioners' motion for a stay and for expedited appeal directly to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2). On June 5, 2009 we heard oral argument, and ruled from the bench and by written order, affirming the Sale Order "for the reasons stated in the opinions of Bankruptcy Judge Gonzalez," stating that an opinion or opinions would follow. This is the opinion.
In a nutshell, Chrysler LLC and its related companies (hereinafter "Chrysler" or "debtor" or "Old Chrysler") filed a prepackaged bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 on April 30, 2009. The filing followed months in which Chrysler experienced deepening losses, received billions in bailout funds from the Federal Government, searched for a merger partner, unsuccessfully sought additional government bailout funds for a stand-alone restructuring, and ultimately settled on an asset-sale transaction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 (the "Sale"), which was approved by the Sale Order. The key elements of the Sale were set forth in a Master Transaction Agreement dated as of April 30, 2009: substantially all of Chrysler's operating assets (including manufacturing plants brand names, certain dealer and supplier relationships, and much else) would be transferred to New Chrysler in exchange for New Chrysler's assumption of certain liabilities and $2 billion in cash. Fiat S.p.A agreed to provide New Chrysler with certain fuel-efficient vehicle platforms, access to its worldwide distribution system, and new management that is experienced in turning around a failing auto company. Financing for the sale transaction—$6 billion in senior secured financing, and debtor-in-possession financing for 60 days in the amount of $4.96 billion—would come from the United States Treasury and from Export Development Canada. The agreement describing the United States Treasury's commitment does not specify the source of the funds, but it is undisputed that prior funding came from the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), 12 U.S.C. § 5211(a)(1), and that the parties expected the Sale to be financed through the use of TARP funds. Ownership of New Chrysler was to be distributed by membership interests, 55% of which go to an employee benefit entity created by the United Auto Workers union, 8% to the United States Treasury and 2% to Export Development Canada. Fiat, for its contributions, would immediately own 20% of the equity with rights to acquire more (up to 51%), contingent on payment in full of the debts owed to the United States Treasury and Export Development Canada.
At a hearing on May 5, 2009, the bankruptcy court approved the debtor's proposed bidding procedures. No other bids were forthcoming. From May 27 to May 29, the bankruptcy court held hearings on whether to approve the Sale.1 Upon extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, the bankruptcy court approved the Sale by order dated June 1, 2009.
After briefing and oral argument, we affirmed the bankruptcy court's order on June 5, but we entered a short stay pending Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court, after an extension of the stay, declined a further extension. The Sale closed on June 10, 2009.
The factual and procedural background is set out in useful detail in the opinions of Bankruptcy Judge Gonzalez. This opinion is confined to a discussion of the arguments made for vacatur or reversal. The Sale Order is challenged essentially on four grounds. First, it is contended that the sale of Chrysler's auto-manufacturing assets, considered together with the associated intellectual property and (selected) dealership contractual rights, so closely approximates a final plan of reorganization that it constitutes an impermissible "sub rosa plan," and therefore cannot be accomplished under § 363(b). We consider this question first, because a determination adverse to Chrysler would have required reversal. Second, we consider the argument by the Indiana Pensioners that the Sale impermissibly subordinates their interests as secured lenders and allows assets on which they have a lien to pass free of liens to other creditors and parties, in violation of § 363(f). We reject this argument on the ground that the secured lenders have consented to the Sale, as per § 363(f)(2). Third, the Indiana Pensioners challenge the constitutionality of the use of TARP funds to finance the Sale on a number of grounds, chiefly that the Secretary of the Treasury is using funds appropriated for relief of "financial institutions" to effect a bailout of an auto-manufacturer, and that this causes a constitutional injury to the Indiana Pensioners because the loss of their priorities in bankruptcy amounts to an economic injury that was caused or underwritten by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Mine Workers of Am. Combined Benefit Fund v. Walter Energy, Inc.
...... See Mich. Empt. Sec. Commn. v. Wolverine Radio Co. (In re Wolverine Radio Co.) , 930 F.2d 1132 (6th Cir.1991) ; Leckie , 99 F.3d at 582 ; In re Trans World Airlines, Inc. , 322 F.3d 283, 289–90 (3d Cir.2003) ; In re Chrysler LLC , 576 F.3d 108, 112 (2d Cir.) cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC , 558 U.S. 1087, 130 S.Ct. 1015, 175 L.Ed.2d 614 (2009) and vacated sub nom. In re Chrysler, LLC , 592 F.3d 370 (2d Cir.2010). Indeed, “the ‘modern trend’ ......
-
In re Ditech Holding Corp., Case No. 19-10412 (JLG)
...Chapter 11 reorganizations and § 363 sales 'to the extent permitted by the statutory language.'" See id. (citing In re Chrysler LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 125 (2d Cir. 2009) vacated as moot 592 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2010); In re Lionel Corp., 722 F.2d at 1071). The Second Circuit concluded that "the ba......
-
Elliott v. Gen. Motors LLC (In re Motors Liquidation Co.)
......President Obama also reassured the public: But just in case there's still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can: If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been, because starting today, the United States Government will stand behind your warranty. 7 As the President stood behind the ......
-
Lyons v. Rienzi & Sons, Inc.
......An asset purchase agreement that specifically negates facts that might otherwise support successor liability is entitled to enforcement.” Doktor v. Werner Co., 762 F.Supp.2d 494, 498 (E.D.N.Y.2011); see also In re Chrysler LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 124–26 (2d Cir.2009), vacated sub nom. on other grounds by [863 F.Supp.2d 223] Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1015, 175 L.Ed.2d 614 (2009) (mem.). A bankruptcy court's order approving the sale of ......
-
Unsuccessful Successors? Limits On Bankruptcy Sales 'Free And Clear' Of Successor Liability
...v. DeMatteis/MacGregor, JV, 209 F.3d 252, 259 (3d Cir. 2000)); see Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), 576 F.3d 108, 126 (2d Cir. 2009), judgment vacated, 129 S.Ct. 2275 (2009); United Mine Workers of Am. 1992 v. Leckie Smokeless Coal Co. (In re Leckie Smok......
-
So You Want To Sell (Or Buy) A Company Under Section 363? Here's How
...Rev. 1375 (2010); Mark J. Roe & David Skeel, Assessing the Chrysler Bankruptcy, 108 Mich. L. Rev. 727 (2010). 70 In re Chrysler LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 71 In re Gen. Motors Corp., 407 B.R. 463, 507 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009). 72 467 B.R. 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 73 Id. at 708. The conte......
-
Delaware District Court Holds That Certain Federal Labor Law Successor Obligations Were Not Extinguished By A "Free And Clear" Section 363(f) Bankruptcy Sale
...LLC, 533 B.R. 600, 622, 627 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2015). 4 See Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), 576 F.3d 108, 124 (2d Cir. 2009) (approving a sale of assets to a newly formed acquisition entity free and clear of the debtor's liability for certain vehicle de......
-
Debtor Can Sell Assets Free And Clear Of Successor Liability Claims Asserted By Union Pension Funds
...included within the scope of interests under section 363(f). See Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), 576 F.3d 108, 124 (2d Cir. 2009) (a sale of assets to a newly formed acquisition entity free and clear of the debtor's liability for certain vehicle defects......
-
Alla Raykin, section 363 Sales: Mooting Due Process?
...Reorganizations, 27 EMORY BANKR. DEV. J. 25, 36 (2010) (discussing Ind. StatePolice Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), 576 F.3d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 2009), aff’d, 556 U.S. 960, 960 (2009), vacated, 130 S. Ct. 1015 (2009), remanded, 592 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2010)).In re Lehman Bro......
-
Generalised Creditors and Particularised Creditors: Against a Unified Theory of Standing in Bankruptcy.
...("[Successor liability claims can be 'interests' when they flow from a debtor's ownership of transfer red assets."); In re Chrysler LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 126 (2d Cir. 2010), vacated, 592 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. (316) The two slightly different manifestations of this requirement are "continuity of en......
-
CHAPTER 11 BUYING AND SELLING OIL & GAS ASSETS IN BANKRUPTCY
...In re Chrysler LLC, 405 B.R. 84 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("Chrysler"), aff'd sub nom. Pascale v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), 576 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009), vacated and appeal dism'd as moot sub nom. Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, No. 09-285, 2009 BL 267592 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2009). (§......
-
Reconciling Bankruptcy Law and Corporate Law Principles: Imposing Successor Liability on Gm and Similar "sleight-of-hand" 363 Sales
...see, e.g., In re Chrysler LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 119 (2d Cir. 2009), vacated as moot, 592 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that Chrysler's continuing loses of over $100 million per day meant that it "fit the paradigm of the melting ice cube"). 30. See Hon. J. Vincent Aug, et al., The Plan of Re......