Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.)
Decision Date | 26 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy Case No. 14–10979 CSS Jointly Administered,Adversary Proceeding No. 14–50363 CSS |
Citation | 527 B.R. 178 |
Parties | In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al., Debtors. Delaware Trust Company as Indenture Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware |
Nicholas J. Brannick, Norman L. Pernick, J. Kate Stickles, Cole Schotz P.C., Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff.
Jason M. Madron, William A. Romanowicz, Tyler D. Semmelman, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE, for Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING CROSS–MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT1
1. This adversary proceeding relates to a series of 10% First Lien Notes issued by Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc., with original maturity of 2020, pursuant to an Indenture dated August 17, 2010. The original indenture was supplemented as of January 29, 2013.
2. On April 29, 2014, the EFIH Debtors filed petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The EFIH Debtors sought approval of debtor-in-possession financing, in part, to repay all of the outstanding Notes and settle certain Noteholders' claims (the “DIP Motion ”). (No. 14–10979, D.I. 74, 858, 859.) The non-settling Noteholders are represented by the Trustee, the Plaintiff in this adversary proceeding.
3. On May 13, 2014, the Trustee objected to the DIP Motion, arguing that the Noteholders were entitled to a secured claim for an amount described in the Indenture as the “Applicable Premium” because: (i) an Optional Redemption would occur when the Notes were repaid; (ii) the EFIH Debtors intentionally defaulted by filing bankruptcy to avoid paying the Applicable Premium, and (iii) the repayment would be a breach of the Noteholders' purported right to rescind the Notes' acceleration. (No. 14–10979, D.I. 421.)
4. On May 15, 2014, the Trustee initiated this adversary proceeding. (No. 14–10979, D.I. 470; No. 14–50363, D.I. 1.) The Complaint contained the claims from the May 13 objection, plus (a) an unsecured claim for breach of a purported “no-call” covenant in the Indenture; and (b) three unsecured claims, one for each of the three counts raised in its May 13 objection. (Compl.¶ 76.) The Trustee also simultaneously filed a motion seeking a declaration that it could decelerate the Notes without violating the automatic stay. (No. 14–10979, D.I. 473 (“Stay–Applicability Motion ”).) On June 4, 2014, the Trustee sent a purported notice of deceleration to the EFIH Debtors.
5. On June 6, 2014, the Court approved the DIP financing, the EFIH Debtors' use of the DIP financing to pay the outstanding EFIH First Lien Noteholders, and the settlement resolving certain Noteholders' claims for the Applicable Premium. (No. 14–10979, D.I. 858 (Order Approving EFIH First Lien Settlement),3 859 (Order approving use of DIP financing).) The Noteholders who chose not to accept the settlement are pursuing claims for an Applicable Premium in this adversary proceeding. (No. 14–50363, D.I.9, 10.) These Noteholders have been paid their full principal and accrued interest using DIP financing, which was funded on June 19, 2014.
6. On September 12, 2014, the Court bifurcated this adversary proceeding. (D.I.128)4 This is Phase One of the litigation in which the Court will determine (1) whether EFIH is “liable under applicable non-bankruptcy law for ... a Redemption Claim,” including the “make-whole” or other “damages ... under any ‘no-call’ covenant, ‘right to de-accelerate,’ ” or applicable law, and (2) “whether the Debtors intentionally defaulted in order to avoid paying an alleged make-whole premium or other damages.” (Id. at 2–3.) Except with respect to the Trustee's claim that EFIH intentionally defaulted to evade payment of the make-whole, “the Court will assume solely for the purposes of Phase One that the EFIH Debtors are solvent and able to pay all allowed claims of their creditors in full.” (Id. ) If the Court finds EFIH liable for a Redemption Claim, and if EFIH contests that it is, in fact, solvent, Phase Two will determine “(a) whether the EFIH Debtors are insolvent, and, if so, whether that insolvency gives rise to any defenses arising under the Bankruptcy Code in favor of the EFIH Debtors that bar or limit the amount of the Redemption Claim, and (b) the dollar amount of ... any Redemption Claim.” (Id. )
7. The parties conducted full discovery on the Phase One issues, including the production of documents, multiple fact witness depositions, production of expert reports, and multiple expert witness depositions. Thereafter, the EFIH Debtors and the Trustee submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, seeking to resolve all of the claims raised in the contested matter, the adversary complaint, and the Stay–Applicability Motion. (D.I.175, 176, 178, 179.)
8. As set forth below, the Court will grant, in part, and deny, in part, the EFIH Debtors' motion for summary judgment, and deny in its entirety the Trustee's motion for summary judgment. More specifically, the Court holds as follows:
9. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment implicate various provisions in the Indenture dated August 17, 2010 governing the EFIH 10.000% Senior Secured Notes Due 2020 (“Indenture ”). (execution version of Indenture).) That Indenture was supplemented, as of January 29, 2013, but the parties agree that the provisions of that supplement are not relevant here. Additionally, EFIH issued certain 6.875% Senior Secured Notes Due 2012, pursuant to a separate 2012 indenture. That 2012 indenture is substantially identical in all relevant aspects to the Indenture.
10. Plaintiff is the indenture trustee (the “Trustee ” or “Indenture Trustee ”) for the 10.000% Senior Secured Notes due 2020 (“Notes ”), representing Noteholders who did not accept a settlement offer in connection with the repayment of the Notes at the outset of these chapter 11 cases. (See No. 14–10979, D.I. 74.) Defendants are Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company, LLC and EFIH Finance, Inc. (collectively “EFIH, ” the “EFIH Debtors, ” or “Defendants ”).
11. In addition, the following parties are intervenors in this adversary proceeding: UMB, N.A., as indenture trustee for certain senior unsecured notes issued by EFIH (D.I. 13); Fidelity Management & Research Company (D.I. 14); the ad hoc committee of holders of certain unsecured EFIH toggle notes (D.I. 15); Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, investment manager for certain holders of the Notes (D.I. 16); Computershare Trust Company, N.A., and Computershare Trust Company of Canada, the indenture trustee for certain EFIH senior secured second lien notes (D.I. 19); the ad hoc group of holders of the so-called “Legacy Notes” issued by EFH Corp. (D.I. 18); the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of EFH Corp. and EFIH (D.I. 207); and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company LLC, Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company LLC and their direct and indirect subsidiaries, and EFH Corporate Services Company (D.I. 227).
12. In the summer of 2010, EFIH negotiated and ultimately executed a debt exchange that involved the issuance of $2.18 billion of Notes. EFIH and the so-called “Dealer Manager” investment banks, who represented the interests of the lenders who would be accepting the new Notes, were the principal negotiators of the offering and execution documents, including the governing Indenture that is at the center of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (Moldovan Tr. 40:22–41:20, 47:17–21.)5 The Indenture Trustee for the Notes was involved in this process as well; the lead negotiating partie...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FBI Wind Down Inc. v. Innovative Delivery Sys., Inc. (In re FBI Wind Down, Inc.)
...parties upon execution).118 See Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.) , 527 B.R. 178, 183 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015) (granting a summary judgment motion, in part, and denying, in part).119 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(g) ; Burtch v. Detroit For......
-
FBI Wind Down Inc. v. All Am. Poly Corp. (In re FBI Wind Down, Inc.)
...Law § 4.03(c)(1)(G) (6th ed. 2006).131 D.I. 20, p. 254.132 See Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.) , 527 B.R. 178, 183 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015) (granting a summary judgment motion, in part, and denying, in part).133 11 U.S.C. §§......
-
In re Trump Entm't Resorts, Inc.
...as opposed to a court order in other contexts as well. See, e.g., Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. (In re Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co.), 527 B.R. 178, 197 (Bankr.D.Del.2015) (“The automatic stay is not a ‘judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction.’......
-
Marathon Asset Mgmt., LP v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.)
...Credit Agreement, § 3.9.48 See Credit Agreement, §§ 1.1, 3.3, 3.8 and 3.9. Delaware Trust Co . v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178, 192 (Bankr.D.Del.2015), affd, No. CV 15–620 RGA, 2016 WL 627343 (D.Del. Feb. 16, 2016) ("The Inden......
-
Energy Future Wins Round Two In Fight To Skirt Liability For Make-Whole Premiums
...this issue in a pair of rulings in 2015Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015), and Computershare Tr. Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 539 B.......
-
Dashed Expectations: Delaware Court Rules Make-Whole Premium Not Payable Upon Early Repayment Of Bond Debt In Bankruptcy
...recently weighed in on the issue in Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. Aligning itself with a number of New York bankruptcy courts, the Energy Future court granted partial summary judgment to the de......
-
Making Sense of Make-Wholes.
...to interpreting such agreements. See Del. Tr. Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015), aff'd 2016 WL 627343 (D. Del. 2016), rev'd 842 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. (13) 11 U.S.C. [section] 1124. (14) Id. (15) See, e.g., In r......