Silicones v. Bokf, Na, , Wilmington Trust, N.A.
| Decision Date | 20 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 15-1682 (L) 15-1824 (CON) No. 15-1771 August Term, 2016.,s. 15-1682 (L) 15-1824 (CON) No. 15-1771 August Term, 2016. |
| Citation | 874 F.3d 787 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: MPM SILICONES, L.L.C. Momentive Performance Materials Incorporated, Apollo Global ManagemenT, LLC, Ad Hoc Committee of Second Lien Holders, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BOKF, NA, as First Lien Trustee, Wilmington Trust, N.A., as 1.5 Lien Trustee, Defendants-Appellants. U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Successor Indenture Trustee, Momentive Performance Materials Incorporated, Ad Hoc Committee of Second Lien Noteholders, Apollo Management, LLC, and Certain of its Affiliated Funds, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier , Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington D.C.; Mark R. Somerstein, Mark I. Bane , Ropes & Gray, New York, NY, for Wilmington Trust, National Association as Indenture Trustee for the 1.5 Lien Notes. Danielle Spinelli, Joel Millar , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Philip D. Anker, Alan E. Schoenfeld , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY; Michael J. Sage, Brain E. Greer , Dechert LLP, New York, NY, G. Eric Brunstad , JR., Dechert LLP, Hartford, CT, for BOKF, NA as First Lien Trustee.
Susheel Kirpalani , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Roy T. Englert, Jr., Mark T. Stancil, Alan E. Untereiner, Matthew M. Madden , Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Washington, D.C., for U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee.
Ira S. Dizengoff, Abid Qureshi, Brian T. Carney , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY; Pratik A. Shah, James E. Tysse, Z.W. Julius Chen , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C., for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and Apollo Management, LLC, and certain of its affiliated funds.
Joseph T. Baio, James C. Dugan , Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY, for Momentive Performance Materials Inc.
Dennis F. Dunne, Michael L. Hirschfeld , Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York, NY, for Ad Hoc Committee of Second Lien Noteholders.
Seth H. Lieberman, Patrick Sibley , Pryor Cashman LLP, New York, NY, for Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Successor Indenture Trustee.
Ronald J. Mann , Columbia Law School, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Loan Syndications and Trading Association, the Managed Funds Association, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
Before: Cabranes, Pooler, and Parker, Circuit Judges.
Three groups of creditors separately appeal a judgment of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York (Briccetti, J. ) affirming the confirmation of Debtors' Chapter 11 reorganization plan by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Drain, J. ). The creditors argue that the plan improperly eliminated or reduced the value of notes they held. Debtors argue that the plan was properly confirmed and that these appeals should be dismissed as equitably moot. With one exception, we conclude that the plan confirmed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court comports with the provisions of Chapter 11. We remand so that the bankruptcy court can address the single deficiency we identify with the proceedings below which is the process for determining the proper interest rate under the cramdown provision of Chapter 11. We decline to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot.
These appeals by three groups of creditors challenge various aspects of Appellee Momentive Performance Materials, Inc.'s ("MPM,") substantially consummated plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.1 With one exception, we conclude that the reorganization plan (the "Plan") confirmed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court comports with Chapter 11. We remand so that the bankruptcy court can address the single deficiency we identify in the proceedings below, which is the process for determining the proper interest rate under the cramdown provision of Chapter 11.
MPM, a leading producer of silicone, faced serious financial problems after it took on significant new debt obligations beginning in the mid-2000s.2 See 15-1771 JA 286-88; 15-1682 JA 1605-06.3 Following these debt issuances, MPM was substantially overleveraged, and ultimately filed a petition under Chapter 11. The four relevant classes of notes issued by MPM are as follows:
Subordinated Notes . In 2006, MPM issued $500 million in subordinated unsecured notes (the "Subordinated Notes") pursuant to an indenture (the "2006 Indenture"). 15-1771 JA 303. Appellant U.S. Bank is the indenture trustee for the Subordinated Notes. In 2009 MPM issued secured second-lien notes and offered the Subordinated Notes holders the option of exchanging their notes for the newly-issued second-lien notes. The second-lien notes were offered at a 60% discount but were secured. 15-1771 JA 2241. Holders of $118 million of the Subordinated Notes accepted the offer, leaving $382 million in unsecured Subordinated Notes outstanding. 15-1771 JA 2241.
Second-Lien Notes . In 2010, MPM issued approximately $1 billion in "springing" second-lien notes (the "Second-Lien Notes"). 15-1682 JA 1616; 15-1771 JA 476. The Second-Lien Notes were to be unsecured until the $118 million of previously exchanged Subordinated Notes were redeemed, at which point the "spring" in the lien would be triggered. 15-1771 JA 517, 580-81. Once triggered, the Second-Lien Notes would then (but only then) obtain a security interest in the Debtor's collateral. The exchanged Subordinated Notes were redeemed in November 2012, 15-1771 JA 721, at which point the trigger occurred and the Second-Lien Notes became secured with second-priority liens junior to other pre-existing liens on the Debtors' collateral. A primary issue on this appeal is whether the Second-Lien Notes have priority over the Subordinated Notes.
Senior-Lien Notes . In 2012, MPM again issued more debt, this time in the form of two classes of senior secured notes. Specifically, MPM issued $1.1 billion in first-lien secured notes (the "First-Lien Notes"), and $250 million in 1.5-lien secured notes (the "1.5-Lien Notes," and, with the First-Lien Notes, the "Senior-Lien Notes"). 15-1682 JA 1615. Appellants BOKF and Wilmington Trust are the indenture trustees for the First-Lien Notes and 1.5-Lien Notes, respectively. Pursuant to the governing indentures (the "2012 Indentures"), the Senior-Lien Notes were to be repaid in full by their maturity date of October 15, 2020. They carried fixed interest rates of 8.875% and 10%, respectively. The 2012 Indentures also called for the recovery of a "make-whole" premium if MPM opted to redeem the notes prior to maturity. Because the Second-Lien Notes and the Senior-Lien Notes are secured by the same collateral, the holders of those notes executed an intercreditor agreement (the "Intercreditor Agreement"), which provided that the Senior-Lien Notes stood in priority to the Second-Lien Notes as to their respective liens, but that each was junior to pre-existing liens on MPM's collateral. 15-1771 JA 691-718. Other primary issues on this appeal are whether the Senior-Lien Note holders are entitled to the make-whole adjustment and the cramdown interest rate they are entitled to if their Notes are replaced under the Plan.
After these notes were issued, MPM experienced significant financial problems. See 15-1771 JA 284-88. In April 2014, MPM filed a petition under Chapter 11 and ultimately submitted a reorganization plan to the bankruptcy court. 15-1682 JA 3841-912. Several elements of that Plan are at issue on these appeals. The Plan provided for (i) a 100% cash recovery of the principal balance and accrued interest on the Senior-Lien Notes; (ii) an estimated 12.8%-28.1% recovery on the Second-Lien Notes in the form of equity in the reorganized Debtors; but (iii) no recovery on the Subordinated Notes. 15-1771 JA 271-74.
The Plan also gave the Senior-Lien Notes holders the option of (i) accepting the Plan and immediately receiving a cash payment of the outstanding principal and interest due on their Notes (without a make-whole premium), or (ii) rejecting the Plan, receiving replacement notes "with a present value equal to the Allowed amount of such holder's [claim]," and then litigating in the bankruptcy court issues including whether they were entitled to the make-whole premium and the interest rate on the replacement notes. 15-1771 JA 271-72; 15-1682 JA 3873-75. The Senior-Lien Notes holders rejected the Plan, and, thus, elected the latter option.
The appellants here—the Subordinated Notes holders and the Senior-Lien Notes holders—opposed the Plan. (The Second-Lien Notes holders unanimously accepted it.) The Subordinated Notes holders, who were to receive nothing, contended that, under relevant indenture provisions, their Notes were not subordinate to the Second-Lien Notes holders and, consequently, they were entitled to some recovery. The Senior-Lien Notes holders opposed the Plan on the ground that the replacement notes they received did not provide for the make-whole premium, and carried a largely risk-free interest rate that failed to comply with the Code because it was well below ascertainable market rates for similar debt obligations and thus was not fair and equitable because it failed to give them the present value of their claim.
Despite these objections, the bankruptcy court confirmed the Plan following a four-day hearing. In re MPM Silicones, LLC , 2014 WL 4436335 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014), aff'd , 531 B.R. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Confirmation was facilitated by Chapter 11's "cramdown" provision, which allows a bankruptcy court to confirm a reorganization plan notwithstanding non-accepting classes if the plan "does not discriminate unfairly, and is fair and equitable, with respect to each class of claims or interests that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hertz Corp. (In re Hertz Corp.)
...the bankruptcy filing, the Senior Notes were automatically accelerated and required to be paid in full. E.g., In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C., 874 F.3d 787, 803 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding that payment was mandated by acceleration of the notes on the filing of bankruptcy and therefore that payment ......
-
Crescent Beach Club LLC v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.
...to outside sources." Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Retail Holdings, N.V. , 639 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 2011) ; see also Matter of MPM Silicones, L.L.C. , 874 F.3d 787, 795 (2d Cir. 2017) ("The initial inquiry is whether the contractual language, without reference to sources outside the text of the ......
-
In re Ultra Petroleum Corp.
...Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC , as suggesting that a make-whole is unmatured interest. 874 F.3d 787, 801-02 (2d Cir. 2017) ("The make-whole premium was intended to ensure that the Senior-Lien Note holders received additional compensation to make up fo......
-
Ultra Petroleum Corp. v. Ad Hoc Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Ultra Res., Inc. (In re Ultra Petroleum Corp.)
...provision "is to compensate the lender for lost interest." 4 COLLIER , supra , ¶ 502.03[3][a]; see In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C. , 874 F.3d 787, 801–02 & n.13 (2d Cir. 2017) (The "make-whole premium was intended to ensure that [noteholders] received additional compensation to make up for the ......
-
Hertz Bankruptcy Court Weighs In On Make-Whole Premiums, Solvent-Debtor Exception, And Pendency Interest
...of a no-call provision was unmatured interest disallowed under section 502(b)(2)), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 874 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2017). See generally Collier at ' 502.03[3](a) (collecting Judge Walrath declined to decide the issue. The judge noted that, based on re......
-
Fifth Circuit Rules On The "Solvent-Debtor Exception" And Make-Whole Premiums
...F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2016). The Second Circuit disallowed one in BOKF NA v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc. (In re MPM Silicones LLC), 874 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom BOKF N.A. v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2653 (2018), but only because the make-who......
-
Fifth Circuit Rules On The "Solvent-Debtor Exception" And Make-Whole Premiums
...F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2016). The Second Circuit disallowed one in BOKF NA v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc. (In re MPM Silicones LLC), 874 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom BOKF N.A. v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2653 (2018), but only because the make-who......
-
Mootness Muted? ' Eighth Circuit Circumscribes Use Of Equitable Mootness Doctrine To Bar Bankruptcy Plan Appeals
...Plan"). 4. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 690 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 2012). 5. Momentive Performance Materials Inc. v. BOKF, N.A., 874 F. 3d 787, 804 (2d Cir. 6. See Ochadleus v. City of Detroit, 838 F.3d 792, 798 (6th Cir. 2016). 7. See One2One Communes., LLC v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 8......
-
The Needs of the Many: Equitable Mootness' Pernicious Effects.
...9 and chapter 11 confirmation orders. (12) This facet of the doctrine has not gone unnoticed. See, e.g., In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C., 874 F.3d 787, 805 (2d Cir. 2017); cert, denied sub nom. BOKF, N.A. v. Momentive Performance Materials, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2653 (2018) and cert, denied sub nom.......
-
Chapter IV: Making Chapter 13 Work for All Stakeholders
...at 478-79.[639] Id. at 479.[640] Id.[641] See, e.g., Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. v. BOKF, N.A. (In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C.), 874 F.3d 787, 798-800 (2d Cir. 2017); Wells Fargo Bank v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C. (In re Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C.), 710 F.......
-
Making Sense of Make-Wholes.
...Sept. 19, 2016). (11) For cases in which the debtor makes this argument successfully, see Momentive Performance Materials Inc. v. BOKF, 874 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2017); U.S. Bank Tr. Nat'l Assn v. AMR Corp. (In re AMR Corp., 730 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. (12) The contrasting approaches of Judges Sontchi......
-
Distorted Choice in Corporate Bankruptcy.
...[https://perma.cc/SH53-XWDP]. (63.) In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C., 874 F.3d 787, 805 (2d Cir. 2017). A "make-whole" provision requires a breaching promisor to pay a fee designed to compensate the promisee for profits lost as a result of the breach. In a loan contract, the lost profits often c......