In re Bank of New England Corp., CIV.A.01-12229-RGS.
Decision Date | 03 February 2003 |
Docket Number | No. CIV.A.01-12229-RGS.,CIV.A.01-12229-RGS. |
Citation | 295 B.R. 419 |
Parties | In re BANK OF NEW ENGLAND CORPORATION, Debtor. HSBC Bank USA, as Indenture Trustee, and JP Morgan Chase Bank f/k/a the Chase Manhattan Bank, as Indenture Trustee, Appellants, v. Bank of New England Corporation, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Douglas B. Rosner, Goulston & Storrs, PC, Boston, MA, Joseph N. Froelich, Robert C. Shenfeld, Sarah L. Reid, Kelley, Drye & Warren, New York City, for HSBC Bank USA and JP Morgan Chase Bank.
Robin Russell, Andrews & Kurth, LLP, Houston, TX, for Bank of New England Corp.
Dianne F. Coffino, Dewey Ballantine, New York City, for Chemical Bank Delaware.
Katherine Constantine, Monica L. Clark, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for US Bank Trust National Association.
Christopher E. Palmer, William F. Sheehan, Shea & Gardner, Washington, DC, David T. Anderson, Boston, MA, Dennis J. Kelly, Burns & Levinson, Boston, MA, Hugh M. Ray, James Donnell, Van Oliver, Andrews & Kurth, Dallas, TX, Jeanne P. Darcey, Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Boston, MA, Susan Smith, Santos, Peck & Smith, Hartford, CT, for Ben S. Branch.
On December 17, 2001, the Senior Debt holders of the bankrupt Bank of New England Corporation (BNEC), appealed a November 1, 2001 order of the Bankruptcy Court authorizing a distribution of assets from BNEC's estate to the Junior Debt holders. Appellants maintain that no such distribution can be made before they are paid post-petition interest.
Prior to BNEC's spectacular collapse, it obligated itself to six separate issues of Indenture debt, totaling $705,972,000. Under the terms of the Indentures, the first three issues (the Senior Debt) were to have priority over the remaining three issues (the Junior Debt). Each of the Junior Debt Indentures contains an "Agreement to Subordinate." The Agreement states:
each Holder likewise covenants and agrees by his acceptance thereof, that the obligations of the Company to make any payment on account of the principal of and interest on each and all of the Notes shall be subordinate and junior, to the extent and in the manner hereinafter set forth, in right of payment to the Company's obligations to the holders of Senior indebtedness of the Company.1
The Indentures also specifically acknowledge the priority rights of the Senior Debt holders in the event of bankruptcy.
The Company agrees that upon . . . any payment or distribution of assets of the Company of any kind or character, whether in cash, property or securities, to creditors upon any dissolution or winding up or total or partial liquidation or reorganization of the Company, whether voluntary or involuntary or in bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership. conservatorship or other proceedings, all principal (and premium, if any) sinking fund payments and interest due or to become due upon all Senior Indebtedness of the Company shall first be paid in full, or payment thereof provided for in money or money's worth in accordance with its terms, before any payment is made on account of the principal of or interest on the indebtedness evidence by the Junior Notes due and owing at the time. . . .
(Emphasis added). The parties agree that the Senior Debt holders are first in line for the payment of principal and pre-petition interest. The only dispute is over post-petition interest.
BNEC declared bankruptcy in 1991. The Trustee of BNEC's estate, Dr. Ben Branch, having done a truly remarkable job of marshaling BNEC's assets, has paid the principal of the Senior Debt in full, together with all pre-petition interest, post-petition fees, and the Senior Debt holders' expenses.2 On May 23, 2001, the Trustee sought permission from the Bankruptcy Court to distribute $11,000,000 from BNEC's estate to the Junior Debt holders. The Senior Debt holders objected, claiming priority entitlement to post-petition interest. On November 1, 2001, Chief Bankruptcy Judge William Hillman authorized the distribution. In a written opinion, Judge Hillman held that the language of the Junior Debt Indentures guaranteeing the Senior Debt holders "payment in full" of "interest . . . due and owing" did not include post-petition interest. This appeal ensued.
In re The Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., Inc., 156 B.R. 896, 899 (E.D.N.Y.1993). Because I do not interpret Judge Hillman's decision to be based on any perceived ambiguity in the language of the Indentures, but rather on his legal conclusion that the language used failed to satisfy the Rule of Explicitness, the de novo standard of review applies.3
The genesis of the dispute on appeal arises from the interplay between two seemingly contradictory provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(2), a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding is not entitled to post-petition interest.
(b) Except as provided . . . the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of a bankruptcy claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, . . . except to the extent that — . . .
(2) such claim is for unmatured interest.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 510(a), which was inserted into the Bankruptcy Code by Congress in 1978, "a subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law."
The enactment of section 510(a) precipitated a debate over whether Congress had intended to abrogate the equitable foundation on which the Bankruptcy Court had erected the Rule of Explicitness. The origins of the Rule are ably explained in Southeast Banking I.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Bank of New England Corp.
...subordination provisions failed to satisfy it. Id. at 85-86. The district court affirmed. HSBC Bank USA v. Bank of New Engl. Corp. (In re Bank of New Engl. Corp.), 295 B.R. 419, 424-25 (D.Mass.2003). The court's analysis differed somewhat from that of the bankruptcy court, but it too deemed......
-
In re Bank of New England Corp..
...was not sufficiently explicit to meet this standard. The district court affirmed. HSBC Bank USA v. Bank of New Eng. Corp. (In re Bank of New Eng. Corp.), 295 B.R. 419 (D.Mass.2003) (“ BNEC II ”). On appeal, we reversed. HSBC Bank USA v. Branch (In re Bank of New Eng. Corp.), 364 F.3d 355 (1......
-
In re Bank of New England Corp.
...¶ 33. 15. In re Bank of New Eng. Corp., 269 B.R. 82 (Bankr.D.Mass.2001) ("BNEC1"). 16. HSBC Bank USA v. Bank of New Eng. Corp. (In re Bank of New Eng. Corp.), 295 B.R. 419 (D.Mass.2003) ("BNEC2"). 17. HSBC Bank USA v. Branch (In re Bank of New Eng. Corp.), 364 F.3d 355, 368 (1st Cir. 2004),......
-
In re Bank of New England Corp., Civil Action No. 06-10941-GAO.
...New Engl. Corp., 269. B.R. 82, 86 (Bankr.D.Mass.2001), and on appeal this Court (Stearns, D.J.) affirmed, see HSBC Bank USA v. Bank of New Engl. Corp., 295 B.R. 419 (D.Mass.2003). Both courts found the so-called "Rule of Explicitness" (or "the Rule") to be The Senior Indenture Trustees appe......